PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
	That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
	That in the present session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Thursday 15 November at Four o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Devolution

Patrick Hall: If he will make a statement on his future plans for devolution in Northern Ireland.

John Reid: We must now carry forward the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects. Devolved institutions need stability in the interests of good government in Northern Ireland, and in preparation for them taking on further responsibilities under the agreement. Concerns have been raised about aspects of Assembly voting arrangements, which I hope all parties will deal with constructively through the review process. Yesterday I also proposed that the next Assembly elections should be on 1 May 2003.

Patrick Hall: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Given the events in the Northern Ireland Assembly in the past few days, does he agree that there is something deeply unsatisfactory about a situation in which a candidate for First Minister can achieve 70 per cent. of the vote in the Assembly and yet be deemed not to have attracted sufficient support? Will he outline any changes and processes that he intends to put in place to address the problem by speaking to other people and other parties?

John Reid: The first thing that I should do is to welcome the election of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and Mark Durkan. I congratulate them on that.
	My hon. Friend refers to a problem that has been raised with me by a number of parties in the Assembly. I have agreed to constitute a review under paragraph 36 of strand 1 of the agreement to consider that and other matters as they relate to the operation of the Assembly. It is evident that despite all the difficulties and passions that are inflamed by the many aspects of the Good Friday agreement with which we are proceeding, we have a chance to have stable democratic institutions in Northern Ireland in which the various communities can share responsibility for government. I have no doubt that that is what people in Northern Ireland want: local decisions taken on local problems by local politicians.

Martin Smyth: I share the Secretary of State's opinion that local people want local decisions on things that matter to them. Is he prepared to say how wide the review might be? Will he comment on the demand by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Irish Republic for greater visibility of the war being over by the dismantling of military bases at a time when the majority of people in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their background, are still bemused by what is happening about decommissioning?

John Reid: On the first question, the review may not be solely concerned with one aspect. Paragraph 36 of strand 1 of the agreement says that it can deal with procedures and, indeed, wider electoral arrangements. That will be a matter for the parties, which I will ask to come together on 19 November.
	On the second question, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman misinterprets the situation. Very few people in Northern Ireland make demands on me or each other, although they sometimes make suggestions. As for the idea that we should proceed with the normalisation of Northern Ireland, that is our wish, but that can be done only in the context of visible and practical proof that the threat is reducing. We have made significant progress on that, and the decommissioning event was another important step forward. Nevertheless, all hon. Members realise that there are still rejectionist loyalists and dissident republicans, who carried out another attempt to maul and murder people in Birmingham only a few days ago. While those people exist, they stop normalisation. It is a supreme irony that in many areas of Northern Ireland, which, like us, want troop levels to be reduced and normalisation to occur, the main stumbling-block is those dissident republicans who claim to want that very aim.

John McFall: May I congratulate the Secretary of State and others who were involved in the political process over the past few days? Does he agree that that has done more for devolution than anything else over the past few months? I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and Mark Durkan for their courage and endurance in those months. Despite the scenes the other day that were reminiscent of "Rocky IV", we know that there is a way forward, and those people who have been involved in the process must be congratulated on that. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the community infrastructure, especially in working-class Protestant areas, needs to be reinforced, because it will only be at a local level that we solidify that base and ensure an enduring political peace process?

John Reid: We all deprecate some of the scenes that occurred, but we should not sensationalise them. There was a great deal of passion involved—that is the nature of politics in Northern Ireland, as it is in many other areas. The more we can settle disputes with dialogue that does not border on violence, the better it will be for us all.
	I agree with my hon. Friend about the stability of the Executive and the Assembly. Those institutions are not only the democratic bedrock of the Good Friday agreement, but the vehicle through which the age-old differences between the two sides of the community can be reconciled in partnership and, in the Joint Ministerial Council, through which an all-Ireland dimension can be given to the process of seeking solutions, while granting the wish of the majority in Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom. I hope that all the institutions progress. Ultimately, and most importantly, they are the means by which we will deliver a better life for people in Northern Ireland through jobs, education and housing. The sooner we can address those concerns, the better for all involved.

Douglas Hogg: I rejoice in the election of the First Minister, but does the Secretary of State understand the anxiety that many of us in a law-based society feel about the sleight of hand that took place? I refer in particular to the redesignation of Assembly Members from the Alliance party of Northern Ireland as Unionists, which is very difficult to understand. There is also the disparity between the date of elections announced in this House and the date that was apparently, or at least implicitly, communicated to the High Court of Justice in Belfast.

John Reid: On the first matter, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that no-one in his party or in this House has ever used parliamentary techniques, such as filibusters, deadlines and suspensions, that is a chronic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Everything that was done in the Assembly was within the Standing Orders, and it was done with propriety. I wish that he would not take that rather patronising, lofty tone.
	I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advice on my statutory obligations, but I do have others to advise me on my legal responsibilities, and I have a degree of integrity that I hope remains unquestioned. I have met my statutory responsibilities; I have proposed an election date, and I have done so in a way that not only meets the statutory requirements but, I hope, marks the actions of a reasonable man taking into account all the developments that took place.

Stephen Pound: With other hon. Members I had the honour earlier today to meet some of the parents of pupils at Holy Cross school in the Ardoyne. What hope can my right hon. Friend offer those parents of young schoolgirls who want nothing more than for their children to walk to school in peace?

John Reid: I have made my view known: I would like to see the protest called off for three reasons. First, we have opened channels of communication to allow any grievances to be aired, and there may well be real or perceived grievances among the residents of the Glenbryn estate. Secondly, I do not think that any children should be subjected, even by peaceful protest, to the treatment experienced by these children, particularly when some are coming up to their 11-plus examinations at the end of this week. Thirdly, the Glenbryn residents and those who support them undermine their own cause by using that form of action.

Lembit �pik: Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the Alliance party and its leader, David Ford, for showing the courage of their convictions and temporarily redesignating themselves as Unionists to ensure that one of the architects of the peace process, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), was re-elected to his position as First Minister? Does he agree that it is unreasonable that they should have had to redesignate themselves for their votes to be counted? Will he assure me that one of the considerations in his review will be to ensure that we do not find ourselves in such an inequitable situation again?

John Reid: I have no hesitation in expressing publicly my admiration for the courage of and the initiative taken by the leadership of the Alliance party, and before that by the Women's Coalition. Those are small parties which took those steps not to their own advantage, but to the advantage of the whole peace process and the stability of the institutions. Obviously, I cannot prejudge the conclusions of any review, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is one of the matters that will be addressed.

Quentin Davies: Will the Secretary of State accept that we would like to associate ourselves with what he has just said about both the Alliance party and the Women's Coalition? They allowed their sense of the general good to override long-standing party political predilections and they have played a momentous part in the arrangement that has now been reached.
	May I alsothe right hon. Gentleman might want to hold his breath and enjoy it while it lastsoffer him my sincere congratulations on the astuteness and perseverance that he has shown during this period, especially in allowing time for the various parties to reach that essential agreement? Although there were many artificialities in the anomalies in the arrangementmy right hon., learned and noble Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is right to draw attention to themthe greatest artificiality of all would have been 70 per cent. of Members of the Assembly wanting the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to be First Minister, but that democratic decision being overridden. I add my voice to those who have been asking the Secretary of State to ensure that the whole issue of blocking minorities and their appropriate levels is thoroughly examined in the review.

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous accolade and for his support in private discussions on those matters. Sometimes the lack of publicity implies that he and others, such as the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), have not been engaged, whereas in fact they have taken a great interest.
	To answer the question, we shall address that issue in the review. Although the fact that someone can get 70 per cent. support and still not be elected is an obvious subject for discussion, it is also important to remember the history of Northern Ireland: the degree of mistrust between the two communities required a threshold of acceptance by both to be part of the Belfast agreement, so as to ensure that we could make progress with the whole community behind the proposals. The issue is therefore not as simple as it appears, but it will certainly be addressed.

Terrorist Activity

Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on attempts at terrorist activity by republicans since 1 January.

Jane Kennedy: Since 1 January this year, of those terrorist actions that were reported or otherwise came to the attention of the police, 223 have been attributed to republican groupings.

Graham Brady: I am grateful for that response. In the light of the bombing of Manchester five years ago and the attempted bombing of Birmingham at the weekend, does the Minister agree that today the threat to Britain's cities from Continuity IRA and Real IRA is at least as great as the threat from al-Qaeda? Does she also agree that it is necessary to pursue all terrorist organisations and all terrorists with equal vigour, regardless of their origins?

Jane Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's final point. Had he asked a different question, I might have been able to tell him that during the same period more than 840 attempts to commit terrorist acts were made, 620 of which were attributed to loyalist groups. He is right to say that we must tackle terrorist activity wherever and by whomever it is attempted, but I disagree with the main thrust of his question. It is important to note that the Chief Constable has confirmed his view that there has been a real improvement in the situation as a result of the IRA's decision to decommission a quantity of arms. The advice of the Chief Constable must be taken very seriously at a time like this.

Jean Corston: We all know that all terrorism is founded on, and is inextricably bound up with, the drugs trade, organised crime and racketeering. What steps are the Government taking to deal with and dismantle that apparatus of terrorism?

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me the opportunity to publicise the organised crime taskforce, which I chair and which was set up just over a year ago. It has enabled the key agencies in Northern IrelandCustoms and Excise, the Police Service, the Inland Revenue and other agenciesto come together and work together in a much more co-ordinated and coherent way, strengthening relationships between them. As a result, there have been a number of key successes, including drug seizures, the seizure of illegal alcohol, and the interception and the disruption of organised crime in Northern Ireland. Sadly, such crime is one of the key hallmarks of the way in which violence and criminality are developing in the Province.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Minister accept that, despite all the talk about decommissioning, the reality on the ground for many people, especially in north Belfast, is that there is no real decommissioning? Will she confirm to the House the involvement of the Provisional IRA in shooting attacks on the RUC in Duncairn gardens, the shooting of a Protestant man on the Limestone road and a shooting attack on the Ardoyne on Saturday a week ago? While there is much talk about decommissioning, will the Minister confirm that there has to be a programme and timetable for the verifiable completion of decommissioning by the February deadline?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of incidents. If he had heard the answer that I gave earlier, he would know that I said that terrorist activity is perpetrated by a number of paramilitary organisations across Northern Ireland. The response of the security forces is to tackle those incidents wherever they occur and whoever carries them out.
	It is important to remember that the aim of the peace process is total decommissioning of all paramilitary arms; that is the purpose and role of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. The role of the head of that commission will continue and he will maintain contact with the paramilitary organisations that are in touch with him. It is important that organisations involved in terrorism use that opportunity to introduce plans for further decommissioning.

David Winnick: While all terrorist violence is undoubtedly barbaric, is it not a particular obscenity to try to bomb Birmingham where, in November 1974, 21 innocent people were butchered? Is that not yet another illustration of the sort of people in the so-called Real IRA, who go against the mandate of people in the Republic who made it perfectly clear that they support, by an overwhelming majority, the Good Friday agreement?

Jane Kennedy: We unreservedly condemn such attacks. My hon. Friend is right; there can be no support whatsoeverin fact, nothing but absolute condemnationfor individuals who would organise and try to carry out such murderous attacks. I therefore entirely agree with him. At such times, it is important to recognise the role that the police are playing in pursuing vigorously those who are responsible for those murderous attacks to make sure that they are brought to justice for their crime.

Crispin Blunt: I accept that the Minister and the Secretary and State said that the overall level of threat is reducing at the moment. However, given the bomb in Birmingham, the bombs elsewhere and continuing efforts by Real IRA and Continuity IRA to murder members of the security forces this year in Northern Ireland, will the Minister confirm that the threat is real and serious, and that any failure to suppress wider paramilitary violence, to which she referred in an earlier reply, could lead to the historic pattern of republican violence repeating itself?

Jane Kennedy: Security is kept at a level consistent with the threat posed by republican dissidents. The security forces are very much aware of that threat and that from rogue elements within loyalism. It is important that individuals involved in violence ask themselves how they should respond to the significant step recently taken by the Provisional IRA. It is important that they end all paramilitary activity, preparations for paramilitary activity and violence of any sort, intimidation and racketeering.

Police Service

Lady Hermon: What assessment he has made of the recruitment procedure for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Dave Watts: If he will make a statement on police recruitment in Northern Ireland.

Jane Kennedy: The first recruitment campaign for the Police Service of Northern Ireland will enable the Chief Constable to appoint some 300 police trainees from Catholic and Protestant traditions on a 50:50 basis. It should be noted that that is many more than Chris Patten envisaged when he wrote his report.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for her reply and the Secretary of State and other hon. Members for their congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I regret that he cannot be here this afternoon, but he had a long-standing engagement in Washington and he sends his apologies to the House. I wish him and Mark Durkan all the best as First Minister and Deputy First Minister. They form an excellent team and I am delighted that they are back.
	Will the Minister confirm that the same standards will apply to all those who enter the recruitment pool and that they will not be lowered for some? There are rumours about the matter and I would appreciate a clear statement on recruitment procedure.

Jane Kennedy: I am conscious of the hon. Lady's close interest in the subject and that she has written to me recently about it. She pursues her interest in the Police Service and her concerns in Northern Ireland vigorously. It is important to note that the merit pool is a measure approved by Parliament to tackle the under-representation of Catholics and to enable the Police Service to be more widely accepted. That is the purpose of the 50:50 recruitment trawl.
	However, standards have not been lowered. On the contrary, the quality of applicants has been high. All candidates who entered the merit pool were required to fulfil the same fixed qualifying criteria. They have undergone a series of rigorous tests based on United Kingdom-wide competencies. All 300 or more recruits who are joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland deserve our support and compliments on their success so far. We wish them all the best in their training.

Dave Watts: Does the Minister know that many people in the country are fed up with the negative attitudes of many Northern Ireland politicians? Can she confirm that Sinn Fein appears to be actively discouraging people from joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is largely right. It is important to note that almost 20,000 people have sought information about the Police Service of Northern Ireland and recruitment to it. We may have as many as 4,000 definite applicants for the second round of appointments. We hope that all political parties in Northern Ireland will sign up as soon as possible and participate in the new policing arrangement.

Quentin Davies: I am afraid that I cannot take the same tone on policing. Is not it unsatisfactory that the new Police Service of Northern Ireland and the new Police Board are being launched this week with an inherited 20 million deficit? That reduces the possibility of their fulfilling their appointed tasks. Is not it even more unsatisfactory that the new Police Service is not being funded to implement the community policing provisions of the Patten report? They are vital if we are to replace the terror of paramilitary groups in the inner-city areas. Does the Minister agree that there should be no question in the current circumstances of running down the full-time reserve?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman may have missed the fact that we have already committed a further 10 million to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Discussions are continuing, and there is a likelihood of further resources later in the year. The Chief Constable assures me that while the voluntary severance programme is being effected, the police's continuing service to the community, including implementing community policing, will remain efficient, effective and accountable.
	The Royal Ulster Constabulary has recently been laid to rest and the Police Service of Northern Ireland has come into being. As we approach Remembrance Sunday, I wish to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the bravery and professionalism of the RUC. More than 300 RUC police officers have been killed in the line of duty; hundreds more have been injured.
	I look forward to working with the new Police Service of Northern Ireland in future, and I am sure that the RUC's professionalism and dedication will continue to be demonstrated by the officers of the new service.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Jo Moore

Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the continued employment of Jo Moore as a special adviser to a Cabinet Minister.

Tony Blair: I have nothing to add to what I said two weeks ago on this subject.

Julian Lewis: What a disappointing reply that is, especially as so many hon. Members, including the Father of the House, believe that today would be a very good day to bury Jo Moore as a special adviser, and the discredited Minister for whom she works. As that is not going to happen, will the Prime Minister confirm that Jo Moore was present at the meeting between the Transport Secretary and the chairman of Railtrack on 25 July? Will he arrange for the minutes of that meeting to be published today?

Tony Blair: I do not know who was present at that meeting. No doubt if the hon. Gentleman tables a question on the matter, it will be answered. As for the first part of his question, I am afraid that I disagree with him.

Engagements

Paddy Tipping: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 November.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, I shall go to America to meet President Bush.

Paddy Tipping: Will the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues arrange to meet the President of Pakistan, General Musharraf, when he is in London this week? Will my right hon. Friend use the opportunity to discuss the President's desire for a short, concise campaign in Afghanistan, and to stress and strengthen the importance of the other two strands of the campaign, namely forging stronger diplomatic links and bringing about more efficient delivery of humanitarian aid?

Tony Blair: President Musharraf has taken a very brave and principled stand in respect of the coalition's efforts in Afghanistan. It has not been easy for him, and I pay tribute to his leadership in doing so. I want to assure my hon. Friend and, indeed, President Musharraf, that we shall work with Pakistan in terms of humanitarian aid, which is enormously important, and of an operation in which Pakistan is presently bearing an enormous burden. We shall also work with them to ensure that, once the regime headed by Mullah Omar departs from Afghanistan, we can have in place a broad-based regime, with a Pashtun element in it. I believe that Pakistan can help us in that regard. I certainly support the stand that the President has taken and we shall make clear our support in the meetings that we have with him this week.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister still have full confidence in his Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions?

Tony Blair: Yes.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is amazing that the Prime Minister can go on expressing full confidence in a man whose judgment is so bad that it led him to keep Jo Moore while dumping his respected director of information. That same man was attacked only yesterday by the chairman of Railtrack[Hon. Members: Oh.] They do not want to listen to this, but the truth is that this same man was attacked yesterday by the chairman of Railtrack, who said that the Minister's[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have order in the Chamber.

Iain Duncan Smith: The chairman of Railtrack said that the Minister's account of their meeting was not true. This is the same manhe has got formof whom the chairman of BMW said that he had completely misrepresented a crucial conversation between them. This is the man whose recollection of conversations and meetings had got so bad that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recommended that his telephone should be tapped. What does it take for the Prime Minister to lose confidence in a Minister?

Tony Blair: Let us deal, for the moment, with the substance of the Secretary of State's decision. At the time Railtrack came to us, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it had already asked for 1.5 billion worth of investment and we had agreed to that. It had also announced that it would have to increase substantially the amount of money on the west coast main line. It then indicated that Railtrack's deficit by next March, even if all that additional money were put in, would be 1.7 billion. In those circumstances, it was quite clear that the company could not carry on as before. Therefore, the decision was taken, by my right hon. Friend, to make sure that we put both the finances and the structure of the company on a sound footing for the future.
	It may be the caseI believe that it isthat the Conservative party is saying that the shareholders should be given their demand of 3.60 a share. Let me explain to the House what that would mean. If we acceded to that demand, it would literally mean taking 1 billion or more of taxpayers' money50 for every household in the countryand giving it to the shareholders. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is his policy, and justify it?

Iain Duncan Smith: This is enlightening: the Prime Minister avoided any reference to the Secretary of State; and, worse still, he did not back up what the Secretary of State said about his meeting with the chairman of Railtrack. The Secretary of State stood by and watched as small investors and railway employees bought shares which he knew were worthless, because he had already decided to send Railtrack to the wall. The Secretary of State's conduct has been so bad that the Financial Services Authority is now having to investigate allegations that he misled investors. Is it not the latest example of behaviour of a Minister who is addicted to spin and, when the spin fails, there is no remorse, no regret and no resignation? Will the Prime Minister recognise once and for all that, to all decent people, the Secretary of State represents the unacceptable face of new Labour?

Tony Blair: First, I certainly do stand by what the Secretary of State said. Secondly, the shareholders[Interruption.] The issue is as I have just described to the right hon. Gentleman: the company was in effect bust. That is clear. It wanted more and more money; indeed, it wanted effectively an open-ended guarantee of extra taxpayers' money.
	The shareholders want not sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman but money from the Government. That is perfectly acceptable. As I understand it, the Conservative party's position is that it backs the shareholders' claim for 3.60 a share. [Hon. Members: That is not the issue.] With respect, that is the issue. Does one accept that and hand the 1 billion over, or not accept it? We believe that the 1 billion is better spent on the railways. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that it is better spent on the shareholders, despite the fact that the company is effectively insolvent, let him get to his feet and say so.

John Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the tragic and unnecessary death last year of my constituent, PC John Antony Thomas, who died after contracting deep vein thrombosis on a return flight from his honeymoon in Hawaii? PC Thomas was only 30 years old. He had just had a thorough police medical check and had been given an A1 bill of health. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing public concern about DVT among airline passengers since the death of my constituent? Emma Christoffersen, aged 28; Nigel Walcott, aged 40; Arwyn Thomas, aged 28; and the 45 other people

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister will be able to answer the question.

Tony Blair: I should like first to express through my hon. Friend my condolences to the families of his constituents who have died as he described. As he probably knows, United Kingdom long-haul airlines have taken a series of measures to address the issue. Although we do not intend to have a separate inquiry ourselves, the World Health Organisation is conducting specific research into the problem and we intend to participate in that programme.

Charles Kennedy: A fortnight ago, the Prime Minister replied to me that the humanitarian aspects of the Afghanistan campaign were every bit as important as the military ones. That being so, what effort is he making to ensure that the 700 million of multilateral aid that has been pledged is getting through? As current reports show that less than half of that aid has reached the places that it should, will the Prime Minister back President Chirac's call this morning for a high-level donor meeting at the first opportunity?

Tony Blair: I do think that the idea of a donor meeting is sound, and it is one of the things that we discussed the other evening when President Chirac was at No. 10 Downing street. I also believe that it is essential that the humanitarian aid gets through. The money is pledged, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, and additional efforts are being made by the World Food Programme to get food through. It has very substantially increased those efforts and is now running well over 1,000 tonnes per day.
	The present difficulty, however, is that even if that food and other aid go in, by their actions the Taliban are obstructing that aid from reaching those for whom it is intended. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in urging the Taliban authorities to do everything that they possibly can to co-operate with the UN aid agencies and to ensure that the food that is there for delivery to people in Afghanistan actually reaches its destination.

Charles Kennedy: The whole House and the whole country will of course agree with that last sentiment. I think that, on the military side, many of them will also share the great sense of public and international unease about the recent use of cluster bombs. Later today, when the Prime Minister sees the President of the United States, will he seek an assurance that no more of them will be deployed?

Tony Blair: No, I will not seek that assurance. Cluster bombs have been used in five instances, one in respect of a terrorist training camp and the other four in respect of front-line Taliban troops. They are not what are called sub-munition cluster bombs; in other words, the bombs that have been used explode on impact. They are weapons that are legal, and they are necessary in certain specific circumstances.
	I tell the right hon. Gentleman what I have told others when they have raised such issues. There is no easy or pleasant way of fighting this type of conflict. The single most important thing now is that we take whatever action we possibly can to ensure that the Taliban troops are weakened and that those who represent the forces opposed to them can move forward. I believe that that is happening. The air strikes have done immense damage to the terrorist networks of al-Qaeda and to the whole machinery and military infrastructure of the Taliban.
	If we want this conflict to be brought quickly to an end, we have to fight it vigorously. We will fight it by doing everything that we possibly can to minimise civilian casualties. That is what we do, and the vast majority of the bombs dropped in Afghanistan are nowhere near civilian areas, never mind targeted on civilians. Nevertheless, the plain fact is that it is not easy in any conflict to avoid civilian casualties entirely. The difference between us and al-Qaeda and the Taliban is that we try to minimise civilian casualties; bin Laden and his people try to maximise them.

Brian Iddon: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking time out from an extremely busy schedule to sign the pledge in recognition of Muslim Awareness Week? What type of signal is sent out when the Leader of the Opposition fails to turn up and

Mr. Speaker: Order. The actions of the Leader of the Opposition are not the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Tim Loughton: Can we now ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with the assertion of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that the current state of Railtrack can be blamed on the directors? If he does, how on earth can he explain why in October the chairman of Railtrack, John Robinson, was offered the job of heading the new not-for-profit company?

Tony Blair: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has exclusively blamed the directors. Indeed, I think that he has cast his net rather more widely. I think that a large part of the blame should be laid on the party that privatised the railways in the first place.
	As for Mr. Robinson, he is undoubtedly someone of very great ability, but the fact of the matter is that the company was not solvent. We had a simple choice, which is what the Opposition want to obscure: were we to carry on putting vast sums of public money into a failed company, or were we to assert that the public interest must come first?

Colin Challen: I know that my right hon. Friend is not the world's greatest fan of the Tobin tax, but does he agree that we in this country should lead in finding new ways of funding development aid? Ifdread the daya Conservative Government ever returned to power, the first thing that they would cut is development aid.

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend on this at least: development aid is extremely important. We have increased it by some 45 per cent., it is rising as a proportion of national income, and it is making a big difference in different parts of the world. Thanks to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, we have also done an immense amount on debt relief for the poorest parts of the world. I hope and believe that we can do more with other countries.
	All I would say about the international financial system is that I think that what most of the poorest countries of the world want is greater access to western markets. We should make that a part of the new World Trade Organisation negotiations.

Mark Francois: What comfort can the Prime Minister offer my constituents in South Woodham Ferrers, who overwhelmingly oppose plans by the Liberal-run Chelmsford borough council to force 1,700 new houses into their town against their will? For his part, will the Prime Minister consider abolishing Labour's national housing targets, which force ever more houses into local communities against the wishes of the people who actually live there?

Tony Blair: I cannot commentindeed, I do not want to commenton the Liberal council in the hon. Gentleman's area[Hon. Members: Go on.] No, I will resist that temptation.
	The hon. Gentleman's points were obviously put to him very strongly by his constituents, but whatever Government are in power, over a long period, they must balance the issues. They must balance planning and new construction with the desire of people already in housing developments not to have new people moving in. As a matter of fact, we have adopted a very balanced approachoverall, I think, a rather more balanced approach than that of the last Government.
	Let me say to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest respect that, while I know that there are difficulties in all these areas, I do not think that we could have a blanket ban on any new build at all. I do not think that that would be sensible. We have to strike a balance, and I believe that we have.

Jim Cunningham: When my right hon. Friend meets President Bush, will he put high on the agenda the plight of hundreds and thousands of Afghans, caused by the failure of food to get through to villages in Afghanistan?

Tony Blair: I looked at the exact figures earlier when I was replying to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). The World Food Programme has dispatched some 32,000 tonnes of food in the last month and 12,000 tonnes in the last week, so it is beginning to get more food through.
	Mr. Kessler, spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has said:
	the aid is not being delivered in the quantities needed. What we would like from the Taleban is the return of our offices and assets and a guarantee that our people on the ground won't be hassled by armed men.
	It is clear what the obstacle is, and I hope very much that the Taliban will listen to those words and act on them.
	The food is there, and we will make every effort to get it through. I think that the idea of a donor conferencesuggested, I believe, by President Bush as well as President Chiracis very sensible. But in the end, for getting the food to Afghanistan and the people inside it, we depend not just on the donors but on those in charge of vast tracts of Afghanistan, namely the Taliban, to allow the food through.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Secretary of State for Health when he says that the winter crisis in the NHS now
	begins in July and ends in June?

Tony Blair: The point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was makingwhich was absolutely rightwas that it is important with the extra pressures on the health service to make sure that we get the extra beds into the health service and the extra nurses and doctors. That is precisely why we committed ourselves to the substantial additional investment in the health service that he and his party opposed.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister misses the whole point. All those patients who have to queue up for the NHS know that it is not improving and all his words do not change anything. In far too many areas, as patients also know, it is getting worse. His own Department's figures show that the number of patients now being treated in routine operations is at a standstill. One in four patients are now waiting for more than six months and the number is rising. The British Medical Association said only a few days ago that the Government have no chance of meeting their six-month in-patient target set just before the election last year. Given the evidence provided by his own Department's figures, are not members of the public entitled to ask where all the money has gone?

Tony Blair: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman exactly where the money has gone, and since he wants me to use the Department's figures, I will. Since 1997, there have been more than 500,000 more operations, more than 1 million more new out-patient appointments and more than 250,000 more emergency admissions. Cataract replacement operations are up 33 per cent., heart operations up 14 per cent., knee replacements up 22 per cent., waiting lists are down by more than 100,000, and there are 17,000 more nurses and almost 7,000 more doctors. Of course, there are still fundamental problems in many parts of the health service, but the additional money that has gone in has yielded those benefits. With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the difference between us is that we want the money to go in and he wants to take it out.

Iain Duncan Smith: There he goes again, always reeling off endless figures and endless nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman talks again of more time and more money, but patients who have to queue up know that it is not working. Worse than that, doctors also know that it is not working. I have a letter from an orthopaedic surgeon who writes:
	It seems to be a complete nightmare at the moment. We seem to be resourced for lots of things other than treating our patients.
	That is the real point. Is not it truewhat that surgeon writes and what patients seethat when it comes to reforming our health service the reality is that the Prime Minister is long on words but short on delivery? If he cares to listen, he will understand that that is because he and his party are wedded to dogma and they put that before the needs of patients. They do not care about patients and, as a result, the crisis in the NHS is for life, not just for Christmas.

Tony Blair: Well, he read it, he did not read it well, and it was not worth reading anyway. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the money has had no impact at all, that is wrong. As a result of that money, there are more nurses and doctors, there are more people being treated, accident and emergency departments have seen real changes and so have GP premises. Of course, there is a long way to go, because four or five years ago the number of beds had been cut, the number of nurses had been cut, there were no new hospitals being built and there was underfunding in the health service. All that will cure that is the money going in and the changes being made. The difference between us is that we are committed to that money and the right hon. Gentleman is committed to taking it back out.

Bill O'Brien: May I express to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues my gratitude for, and appreciation of, their efforts to repair the damage caused to the mining community by the previous Conservative Government? A lot has been done, but much remains to be done. Will he comment on the delay in payment of compensation to miners crippled with chronic bronchitis and emphysema? Will he also address the matter of compensation for the dependants of mineworkers who have passed away? Those dependants are entitled to compensation. Finally, will he also address the delays in the payment of compensation to people suffering from vibration white finger?

Tony Blair: The total amount of compensation already paid out for respiratory disease and vibration white finger is somewhere in the region of 600 million, and 1 million is being paid out every day. There are still delays with some of the claims because each claim has to be individually validated, but I agree with the implication in the first part of my hon. Friend's question: over the past few years, this Government have done a massive amount to assist the mining communities. Money has been made available for regeneration and for new job and community projects and, as I said earlier, more than 600 million has been used to deal specifically with miners' diseases. That means that the total invested in mining communities over the past few years, specifically on issues related to the mining industry, has reached about 1.5 billion. There is still more that we need to do, but I hope that he would be one of the first to accept that, although a lot remains to be done, we have none the less done a considerable amount. We intend to do more.

Richard Ottaway: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anxiety and trauma being experienced by millions of policy holders with the Equitable Life assurance society? He has rightly established an inquiry under Lord Penrose to look into what many people perceive to be a catastrophic regulatory failure. With that in mind, does he stand by the statement made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who said that the Government had an open mind about compensation?

Tony Blair: Of course I stand by whatever my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has said. The Financial Services Authority report has already been published, and the inquiry that we have established will get to the facts. It is on the basis of the facts that we then must make up our minds about what the Government's response should be. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that a reasonable way to proceed.

Jim Murphy: As many of our young men and women face conflict in Afghanistan, is my right hon. Friend aware that, at home, almost 900 young Britons lose their personal battles against heroin every year? Will he make it clear to the Northern Alliance and others that any peace settlement must ensure that the murderous trade in heroin ceases immediately?

Tony Blair: I have two things to say in response to my hon. Friend. First, what has happened since 11 September has had more than a merely economic effect. One of the major reasons for relating what is happening to Afghanistan to our own national interest is the drugs trade, and the fact that 90 per cent. of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan.
	Secondly, the experience of countries such as Pakistan has shown that it is possible to take action to stamp out the drugs trade, and its growth in particular countries. One of the things that we must do in the reconstruction of Afghanistan is to give people there the chance to make a decent livelihood out of proper agriculture and not out of the drugs trade.

David Heath: The Prime Minister has been arguing, rightly, on behalf of democracy around the world. Will he now turn his mind to democracy in this country? Can he give me three good reasons why the second Chamber of this democratic Parliament should not be elected, rather than appointed or anointed?

Tony Blair: The first reason would be that the cross-party royal commission under Lord Wakeham specifically recommended that the House of Lords should not be wholly elected. The second reason is that I think that it is important that the House of Lords is not made up simply of full-time politicians, but should represent a broader range of influences. The third reason is that I believe that the House of Lords should be a deliberating and revising Chamber, as it is now, and that it should not be a replica of the House of Commons.

David Taylor: Does the Prime Minister believe that the mob violence that we saw from elected politicians in Stormont yesterday will have any long-term effect on the prospects for peace and stability in Northern Ireland?

Tony Blair: No is the short answerat least, I hope that it is the right answer. Rather than look at those unfortunate scenes that we saw on the television, we should be better focused on the enormous step forward that was taken in Northern Ireland yesterday. I pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend has done as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I pay particular tribute to the Ulster Unionist party and all those who have taken part in putting the institutions back on their feet again: the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance, the Women's Coalition, Sinn Fein and others, all of whom have worked to make sure that the peace process in Northern Ireland is allowed to move forward again. We have only to look at what has happened in a different part of the worldthe middle eastto see what happens when a peace process breaks down. Whatever scuffles and slightly unseemly incidents may have taken place yesterday, we should take great comfort from the fact that the institutions are back up and running again, with a First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will welcome that most of all.

House of Lords Reform

Robin Cook: With permission, I shall make a statement on further reform of the House of Lords.
	In the previous Parliament we began to reform the House of Lords with an historic step that ended the dominant vote of hereditary peers. I freely acknowledge the generous help of Viscount Cranborne in making that step easier. However, we were always clear that that step was only the first phase of reform. There remains much more that requires reform.
	There remain 92 hereditary peers, and there is no place in Parliament for those who owe their presence there solely to privilege of birth. The largest single party in the House of Lords has twice been voted into opposition in the House of Commons, and the second Chamber should more fairly represent how Britain votes. No Member of the House of Lords has been elected by the public to represent them there.
	Today the Government launch the second phase of reform of the House of Lords with the publication of a White Paper, The House of LordsCompleting the Reform, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. We ask for comments on all or any of the proposals, especially the overall composition of the new House of Lords, by the end of January.
	At the outset, I recognise the major contribution of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in overseeing today's White Paper. It builds on the report of the Wakeham Commission, and its central principle is that reform of the House of Lords should preserve the present balance of power between the two Chambers. We do not need a second Chamber that merely mirrors the House of Commons; nor do we want a House of Lords that could challenge the right of this House to be the representative body of the British people.
	The House of Commons will remain the pre-eminent Chamber, with the sole right to pass legislation on taxation and the final right to decide on all other legislation. The right to form a Government of the United Kingdom will continue to depend on whether that Government can command a majority in the House of Commons.
	The House of Lords will remain a Chamber of revision, of scrutiny and of deliberation. It will retain the power to delay, but not to block, Government legislation. It should continue to be bound by the convention that it does not oppose the Government on a manifesto commitment for which the party in office has an election mandate. Its powers over secondary legislation will be changed from one of veto to one of delay to put that on the same footing as primary legislation.
	The Government accept the conclusion of the Wakeham Commission that our two objectives of promoting reform of the House of Lords while preserving the pre-eminence of the House of Commons will be best achieved by a mixed membership of elected and appointed Members of the second Chamber. The White Paper invites comments on the overall balance between independent Members, elected Members and appointed party Members.
	The retention of independent Members who can speak from a range of expertise and authority is important if the House of Lords is to continue its distinctive contribution to national debate. We therefore propose to put on a statutory basis an Appointments Commission to nominate independent Members, who will constitute a fifth of the reformed Chamber.
	The Appointments Commission will be independent of Government and accountable to Parliament, not to Ministers. It will be under a statutory duty to ensure that all new appointments contain a minimum of 30 per cent. of both women and men and a fair representation of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and its ethnic communities. Those requirements will also apply to all future party nominations. This will ensure a second Chamber that is representative of United Kingdom society as it is today, not as it was yesterday.
	The Wakeham Commission recommended that there should be elected Members to provide a direct voice for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom in the House of Lords. A majority of the royal commission supported option B, which provided for 87 elected Members. The White Paper proposes that that number be increased to 120. This is the first time that any Government have made proposals for the introduction of elected Members to the second Chamber.
	The White Paper invites views on whether the elected Members should be returned on polling day for the European Parliament, on general election day or on polling day for the devolved and regional bodies in those parts of the United Kingdom where they are established.
	The Government believe that the proportion of appointed party Members should broadly match the distribution of votes between the parties at the most recent general election. We will empower the Appointments Commission to validate those proportions independently. That will remove from the Government of the day the right to determine for themselves the political balance of new appointments. Never again will it be possible for a Government to use political appointments to give themselves a secure majority in the House of Lords, as the Conservative party did throughout the 1980s and 1990s, nor will a Government ever again be able to dominate voting in the second Chamber.
	Our proposals for independent Members chosen by an Appointments Commission and for elected Members returned by proportional representation will guarantee that no party, including a sitting Government, will ever have a majority of the votes in the new second Chamber. That will ensure that the reformed Chamber will be a more effective check and balance on the Government than was possible during the years that the Conservative party was in government.
	All new appointed Members will be appointed for a fixed term. That will end the practice of someone being appointed to Parliament for life. The royal commission recommended that the term of appointment be 15 years. That would be a long periodlonger than for any other public appointment in the UK. The White Paper therefore invites comments on whether the term of appointment to the reformed Chamber should be 15, five or 10 years. No new Member of the reformed second Chamber will become a member of the peerage by virtue of their membership. The link between a title and a seat in Parliament will finally be severed.
	We propose that the reformed Chamber be capped at 600 Members, after a transitional period of 10 years. In line with the conclusion of the Wakeham Commission, we propose to reduce the number of bishops sitting in the House of Lords from 26 to 16. The Law Lords will continue to be Members of the Chamber.
	The White Paper invites comments on two other issues. First, we invite views on whether to retain the present system of daily expenses for Members of the House of Lords or to move to a more formal system of payment in view of the new requirement for elected Members from all parts of the UK. Secondly, we invite views on the circumstances in which a Member should be removed from membership of the second Chamber, such as the expulsion of any Member sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
	Completing the Reform contains the Government's proposals for a House of Lords for the future, but Parliament belongs to the British people. It is right that we should now consult the British people on the design of the second Chamber of their Parliament.
	Those proposals will produce far-reaching reform of the House of Lords. They will remove the last of the hereditary peers from Parliament. They will introduce the first ever elected Members to the House of Lords. They will put the appointment of independent Members outside political patronage. They will ensure that the British electorate voting in a general election, not the Government of the day, decide the proportions in which party appointments are made. They will give Britain a modern second Chamber, which will be able to complement the Commons, but unable to compete with it for power. I commend them to the House.

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for letting me have an advance copy of the statement and the White Paper.
	The Leader of the House has recently been posturing, not least in the press, as a democrat and a great parliamentary reformer. That leads immediately to the question whether he is content with the 20 per cent. elected element in the proposals that he has put before the House. When the hereditary peers were eliminated we were told that they were an affront to democracy, so the question arises as to whether the Leader of the House and the Government are content that their proposed format for the upper House is any less of an affront.
	Is the statement exactly the same as the one being given in another place? It would be instructive to know of any variation. Is the statement the work of the autocrat at the other end of the building, the Lord Chancellor, or the democrat and reformer, the Leader of the House? It strikes me that the White Paper comes as neither one thing nor anotherit is a fudge.
	The Government have generouslynotallowed us until 31 January 2002 for consultation on this very complex and important matter. Does the Leader of the House seriously suggest that from now until the end of January gives sufficient time for all the varied and legitimate interests to make their considered views known to the Government? That is surely an insult and an absurdity.
	In that context, what happened to the Joint Committee of both Houses that was supposed to consider these matters? We have heard nothing of it today, and I am not surprised. The Government made a commitment to it in July 2000; they renewed that commitment in March 2001, but it has now been quietly dropped. Why? Surely the answer is that the abbreviated and truncated period of so-called consultation is presumably designed to replace an approach by a Joint Committee that would at least allow the possibility of cross-party agreement, which the Government have always said that they want to achieve. Indeed, they repeat that in the White Paper.
	What support does the Leader of the House think his proposals will attract in the parliamentary Labour party? He will no doubt be aware, as we all are, of early-day motion 226, which at the last count had 149 signatures, most from Members of his party. They seem to want a wholly, or at least largely, elected upper House. How will he satisfy his parliamentary colleagues with the contents of the White Paper? I think that we should know.
	The Government suggest an upper House with an eventual limit of 600, with 120 elected and 120 Cross Benchers plus the Law Lords and the bishops. That leaves about 300 others, although currently there are about 560 in the remaining category. That leads to an interesting question, which I do not think is answered in the White Paper: when the 600 limit is finally implemented, will new Members be appointed only on the demise of existing Members? That will obviously have an important effect on all the mechanisms outlined in the White Paper.
	The White Paper suggests at one and the same time that there will be 600 Members, that that total will come into force after 10 years, that during the 10-year transition period there will be a maximum of 750 Members and that there must always be a lead for the governing party over the main opposition party in membership of the upper House, although current life peers will retain their membership for life. However, there could easily be at least two general elections during the 10-year transition period. The White Paper also asserts that the potential membership must reflect party balance at each previous election.
	For the life of me, I cannot seeperhaps the Leader of the House will explainhow on earth one can fulfil all those requirements without them conflicting and undermining one another. They strike me as completely and utterly inconsistent.
	The Leader of the House made great play of the Appointments Commission and the key role that it will play in the process, but how will the initial Appointments Commission be appointed? Will it be appointed by the House of Lords as currently constituted? Will that be done by a motion of that House? Will that House be able to vote on or amend that motion? Even if one were to accept the intention to create the permanent Appointments Commission, of which great play is made in the White Paper, if not the reality of thata great deal of further scrutiny is requiredthe initial Appointments Commission will be crucial and we must know more about it.
	A minor question that arises from page 25 of the White Paper is the intriguing statement that
	the Appointments Commission will ensure that at least 30 per cent. of new appointees are women and 30 per cent. are men.
	The mind boggles as to what the rest will be, but I am sure that the Leader of the House will be able to satisfy us on that matter with his usual facility.
	We would not have started where the Government started in this processthat is clear. We thought phase 1 ill-conceived, but we gave the Government the benefit of the doubt and believed that phase 2 would be taken seriously and done properly. We all share an interest in having the most effective upper House possible, but what has been proposed today falls far short of that. It satisfies no criteria that even the Government set out. It satisfies few criteria set out by the Wakeham Commission. All in all, it is an enormous disappointment.
	There is a danger that the proposal will provide a fig leaf of democracy over what continues to be a largely unrepresentative appointed body. At worst, we shall have a continuation and indeed an institutionalisation of Tony's cronies. The Government should either withdraw the White Paper or at the very least refer it to a Joint Committee of both Houses, which was always intended to be the vehicle by which this reform would proceed.

Robin Cook: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks for making the document available to him. I start by trying to build on the narrow basis of consensus between us.
	On the question of the consultation ending on 31 January, that date is three months away, but no one is starting out with a fresh sheet of paper as though they had only just started thinking about these matters. The debate has been going on for four years and it is three years since the royal commission was set up. By now, the Opposition should at least have some idea of what they want to say by 31 January. We are putting the White Paper out for consultation, but it would not be satisfactory for that consultation to be confined to a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses. I want to extend it to the public and want civil society, the devolved bodies and local authorities to take part.
	It is important that we cap the upper House at 600; the number should not indefinitely expand with each election. The cap will impose a discipline, and we have accepted that discipline. Even though we are in our fifth year in office, we have still not matched the number of Conservative peers in the House of Lords. We have accepted that as a restraint on us and we will recognise it until we ensure that we have the numbers available in the House of Lords to be replaced by those who will provide a balance that reflects the way in which the nation voted in the general election.
	I did not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman would like the reference to a minimum of 30 per cent. women and I was right, but everyone on the Labour Benches, and many on the Opposition Benches, support a statutory requirement that there should be fair play so that both genders are adequately represented in the House of Lords. If some hon. Members find that an offensive principle, I look forward to the debates in Committee.
	As for the rest of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I can only say that I genuinely admire his brass neck. It is a new departure for the Conservatives to say that they want a more robust and effective Opposition in the House of Lords. In office, they so packed it with their placemen and, occasionally, placewomen that they received total support and even managed to get the poll tax through without a murmur.
	As the right hon. Gentleman said, in opposition the Conservatives have resisted every Government attempt to remove the hereditary peers. They so much disliked what Viscount Cranborne did that they sacked him for it. They voted against Second Reading and Third Reading of the House of Lords Act 1999, which gave effect to reform, and the right hon. Gentleman was one of those who voted against.
	In 18 years, the Conservatives never once proposed that there should be a single elected Member of the House of Lords and never once made a single proposal for reform. Now we are invited to believe that they want a more democratic House of Lords than that proposed. If that is the case, the right hon. Gentleman must answer a simple question, or perhaps one of his colleagues who takes part in these exchanges will do so: what proportion of elected Members would they support?
	I know that the Conservatives find that question difficult, because we heard the Leader of the Opposition in House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, say this morning that they cannot agree on what proportion should be elected.

Eric Forth: indicated dissent

Robin Cook: Lord Strathclyde did indeed say precisely that. He said that the Conservatives have not agreed what proportion should be elected.
	I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have three months for consultation. I want to build a cross-party consensus. I look forward to discussing with the Opposition their plans for a democratic House of Lords, when they have plans to discuss. I hope that they can produce them in the next three months.

Rosemary McKenna: I welcome the statement made by the Leader of the House. This is a very exciting day, because many of us have campaigned for such reform for years and it is wonderful to see how it is being conducted. I congratulate him on the way in which he is carrying out the consultation, because bringing the rest of the country with us and showing how we want to change the House of Lords is crucial.
	May I express my astonishment at the position of the shadow Leader of the House on the 30 per cent. quota? His comments show his complete misunderstanding of equality of opportunity and gender. He does not understand the issue at all. May I ask the Leader of the House about his comment on breaking the link between being a Member of the House of Lords and a member of the peerage? Everyone will welcome that, but how does he propose to deal with the title of the House of Lords? I believe, and many people agree, that it is wrong that individuals should be called your lordship, baroness or whatever. Perhaps that is going a bit far, but should not we consider changing the title of the House of Lords? Is that part of the consultation? Are we inviting comment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question is too long.

Robin Cook: I would have been happy had my hon. Friend been able to continue, Mr. Speaker.
	First, I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the consultation and I share her view that the broad majority of the people of Britain will welcome the commitment to gender equality. On the title, we say in the White Paper that the honours system will continue, but it will do so independently of the House of Lords. We have not made any proposal in the White Paper on the title of the House of Lords. The Wakeham Commission said that the title of the second Chamber should be allowed freely and naturally to evolve. I would not wish rapidly to cut short that process of free evolution, but I am sure that during the consultation views will be expressed, which we can include in our response.

Paul Tyler: I welcome the White Paper and the statement and thank the Leader of the House for giving us copies in advance. I particularly welcome the White Paper's emphasis on what the body should do, rather than who should do it. I shall no doubt return to that.
	Does the Leader of the House recall the explicit promise he made in 1997 to produce
	a democratic and representative second chamber.
	I am sure that the House recognises that the rats have got at it since then, but I should not like to say at which end of the building they have been gnawing away. However, the White Paper now refers to making
	it more representative and democratic.
	It could hardly be less.
	Does the Leader of the House accept that that is not the promise given in the 1997 manifesto and in the agreement made with the Liberal Democrats? Does he accept that the formula proposed120, less than a fifth of the total of 750 at the beginning of the processmeets neither the 1997 manifesto commitment nor that in the 2001 manifesto, on which Labour Members stood for election by the public just a few months ago? Does he subscribe to the ludicrous view, expounded this morning on the Today programme by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), that elections are somehow undemocratic because turnout is so low in safe seats? Does he really want to continue to appoint Archers and Ashcrofts to that body or is he prepared to accept that direct democracy is a more preferable way to ensure that the second Chamber is a true part of a parliamentary democracy?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that it will be ridiculous if the parameters for consultation on the composition of the second Chamber are set just above or below 120? Surely the consultation must provide an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the Houseespecially, perhaps, those on the Labour Benchesto show that many of us believe that that is totally inadequate. The fact that the Conservatives cannot come up with a figure is an additional reason for the rest of us to consider establishing a more democratic House.
	While accepting, as we all do, that the pre-eminence of this House is important, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the White Paper is absurdly cautious in finding ways to guarantee it? There are other options. Disentangling appointments from general elections would clearly make it much easier for this House to be demonstrably the first House.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that an element of indirect election from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London Authority and the English regional authorities, which we hope will be created soon, would ensure greater democratic legitimacy?
	In short, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, for the health of Parliament, we must go further than this timid step? Otherwise, we will have to return again and again to what is unfinished business. Does he realise that he is perpetuating instability at the heart of our parliamentary democracy by going only so far?

Robin Cook: Let me respond first to the hon. Gentleman's specific points before concentrating on his central thesis. The Wakeham Commission took evidence on indirect elections to the House of Lords and found no enthusiasm for it, although the devolved bodies had just been set up. We refer to that in the White Paper. It is open to devolved bodies and other regional bodies to respond to the consultation. Obviously, if they are interested in pursuing that indirect route we can reflect on that when we formulate our response. It is a brute facta realitythat the great majority of England does not have a regional body or elections to such a body, which inhibits the extent to which we can go down that road.
	I read our manifesto with great care and we said that we would seek to implement the Wakeham report in the most effective way possible. That is what we are trying to do this afternoon.
	I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on his central point. Although he did not use these words, in effect he wants a House of Lords that is wholly democratically elected. Many in his party would agree, and many would not. It is a legitimate view and I respect the sincerity of those who hold it, but they should be honest with themselves and the House.
	I cannot conceive of a wholly elected House of Lords that would not regard itself as having a legitimacy equal to that of the House of Commons. It is impossible to think of such a Chamber accepting that it could not legislate on taxation or that it could only delay legislation, not throw it out. A significant change in the balance between the two Chambers would be involved. I do not regard my role as Leader of the House of Commons as presiding over such an historic shift in its powers.

Fiona Mactaggart: I note that the White Paper's title is Completing the Reform, but we have three months to discuss the completion. What will the Leader of the House do if the overwhelming response to his consultation is that he should go further, to at least the top level suggested in the Wakeham report for the proportion of elected Members?

Robin Cook: It would be very unhealthy to begin to speculate about the hypothetical response to the hypothetical expression of a view in the consultation. I can only say to my hon. Friend that we are genuine about the consultation. That is why we published the White Paper, and said at the start of it that all its proposals will be put out for consultation. At the end of the White Paper there are six separate, specific questions on issues on which we want advice and views. One of the questions asks, Is the proportion right between independent Members, elected Members and the party appointments? I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an answer to that and that she will encourage others to express their views, as she has done in her early-day motion. We will certainly take those views into account in our response.

Peter Tapsell: As one of the very few Members left in the House who voted for the Bill on the renunciation of peerages that enabled Tony Benn, Alec Douglas-Home and Quintin Hogg to return to this Chamber, and who subsequently voted for the introduction of life peers, I regard the constitutional proposals as wholly unsatisfactory. They do not go nearly far enough down the democratic path. [Laughter.] I have been arguing this case for 40 years.
	Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me of any other major democratic country in which the second Chamber is not overwhelmingly in numbers elected? Does he not understand that the fundamental flaw in the proposals is that the various categories of Member will speak and vote in the House of Lords with different degrees of authority, and that any elected Member of the second Chamber will inevitably tend to be dismissive of criticisms made by placemen?

Robin Cook: A large number of second Chambers around the world have a mixed membership.

Peter Tapsell: The majority? Name one.

Robin Cook: I said a large number. I do not dispute that the majority are elected, either wholly or in part, although many of the elections are indirect. However, there are many with a mixed membership, and there is no evidence of such membership resulting in a distinction or invidious division between the Members.
	I have a great respect for the antiquity and experience with which the hon. Gentleman speaks to the House, but he should, in fairness, acknowledge that during the great many years on which he sat on this side of the Chamber, under a Conservative Government, he never successfully persuaded them to introduce the reforms that we propose. I suggest, therefore, that those who were unable to take action when they had the opportunity to do so should be a little humble before they dismiss our proposals.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have been considering this matter for some time? In fact, it dates back to October 1976, when he, I and many others at the Labour party conference voted by 6 million to 6,000this was in the days of the wonderful block voteto abolish the House of Lords. I am not in favour of the elected system or of a system in which the chattering classes will reproduce themselves in the House of Lords. I believe in the third way: get rid of it, and try this out in a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

Robin Cook: I blame myself for not bringing this statement to the House on Monday, when my hon. Friend could have put forward the Guy Fawkes option, which he plainly favours. I understand full well why he and so many others want to see change at the other end of the Corridor. Unlike my hon. Friend, most of those who have followed the debate agree that there is a case for a second Chamber as a place of revision, and its disappearance, without anything to replace it, would put an added burden on this Chamber. We make these proposals to try to ensure that we have a second Chamber that works as a complement, not a competitor, to the Commons.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that those of us who believe in accountable government are deeply disappointed by his statement? Does he not understand that at a time when we have a presidential system of government, not a parliamentary system, the powers of Parliament should be enhanced, not cut? Does he not understand that the only proper basis for political authority these days is election? Finally, does he not understand that when he talks about the primacy of this House, in reality he means the primacy of the Government of the day? What we wantI have made this argument since the first day I entered Parliament in 1979is a greatly enhanced second Chamber, wholly or largely elected and with greatly extended political powers.

Robin Cook: I only ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why he never understood his own questions in all the long years that he was in government.

Stephen McCabe: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the fact that he has made it clear that the future of the second Chamber lies in its being a revising Chamber that acts as a check and balance in our system, not a rival to this House. I also welcome the quota for women Members. May I take this opportunity to urge him to consider the deficits in the representation of ethnic minority communities, as well as the lack of proper regional representation? Finally, does he agree that it is wholly pointless for Members to bleat about the absence of a Joint Committee when they have spent the past four years sabotaging any prospect of such a Committee being established?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend's final point is correct: we proposed the establishment of a Joint Committee in the last Parliament but were unable to reach agreement with the other parties on its terms of reference.
	I fully endorse my hon. Friend's remarks about the progress that the reform will achieve in terms of the representation within Parliament of ethnic communities across Britain. We have made good progress on that with House of Lords appointments in recent years, but we remain some way short of a membership of the second Chamber that is fully representative of the ethnic communities. At this tense international moment, we all understand how valuable it would be to have them fully represented.

John Butterfill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem of voter apathy would be made far worse if the system of election were to be the wholly discredited party list system? If that system were adopted, would we face the ridiculous situation that exists in the European Parliament, whereby entitlement under the party lists enables someone who changes party allegiance to continue to sit as a Member?

Robin Cook: To be honest, I do not know what response to make to that question. Some issues will have to be explored in Committee, but I would not be inclined to oppose that as a system that we would find acceptable. Yes, a list system will be used. We do not say in the White Paper whether the lists should be open or closed and we look forward to consultation and discussion on that very point. However, it would not be helpful to any of us if Members of the second Chamber were elected as we are, from a fixed specific constituency, because that would open up the greatest competition between Members of the second Chamber and Members of the House of Commons.

Peter Mandelson: Some of us regret the lack of progress that the Government have made in bringing devolution to the English regions, but, as my right hon. Friend said, they are now finalising their views. Will the Government think imaginatively about ways of accommodating within the arrangements that they make for regional devolution in England the representation of people from those regional bodies in a newly composed House of Lords? Does he agree that we need creativity and more joined-up thinking in carrying through constitutional reform if we are to achieve the new politics and the reinvigoration of our political institutions that so many of us want?

Robin Cook: Like my right hon. Friend, I fully support the development of a regional dimension to United Kingdom politics. We have already done that through the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, and the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and an elected assembly in London. That work must continue, and a White Paper on regional assemblies will come before the House shortly.
	On the question of representation in the House of Lords, there are two ways in which the regional dimension is relevant. The first is whether we should use elections to those regional devolved bodies as the basis on which elections for the elected Members of the House of Lords take place; that is one of the questions that we submitted for consultation. The second was the issue of indirect election from those bodies to the second Chamber. As I said earlier, that is a route for which the Wakeham Commission found no support, but the proposals are now back out for consultation. If the devolved bodies and the existing regional bodies are interested in that involvement and route to election to the House of Lords, they have three months in which to express that view; it is down to them and my right hon. Friend to express it.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Leader of the House will be aware that, at present, there is an independent Appointments Commission. Members from Northern Ireland welcome the statement that there will be fair representation of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Is the Leader of the House aware of the disappointment in Northern Ireland at the fact that Northern Ireland was not represented in the first batch of independent appointments to the House of Lords, despite the fact that a number of eminent members of the community in Northern Ireland applied to the independent commission? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take steps to ensure that when we say that there will be fair representation of the regions, measures will be introduced to ensure that that is reflected in appointments?

Robin Cook: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments but, in fairness, the Stevenson Commission, which made those appointments, was operating on a non-statutory basis. Our proposal in the White Paper is not only that the Appointments Commissions will become statutory but that the obligations that I have outlined will become statutory and therefore mandatory for the commission.

Julie Morgan: I congratulate the Government on tackling the second stage of Lords reform. I welcome the ending of the hereditary principle, the possibility of removing titles and, in particular, the requirement of a minimum of 30 per cent. women. I also welcome the consultation, as I hope that there will be movement during that period on the number of elected Members.
	Why is the percentage of elected Members so lowonly 20 per cent? That is lower than the highest recommendation in the Wakeham report of 35 per cent., or 195 elected members. We have already covered issues relating to what my right hon. Friend thinks about a link to regional governments in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and possibly regional governments in England. Does he see this as the end of the process, or does he see further stages ahead in which we can move to a fully democratic House of Lords?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for aspects of the statement. Totting them up, I think that she gave me a pass mark. I understand what she says about the percentage of those who are elected. From listening to the exchanges today, I believe that it is broadly agreed by almost all present that there should be some elected Members. Many hon. Membersmost, I thinkwould recognise that a wholly elected second Chamber would have severe implications for the House of Commons. The question is where to strike the balance between some and all. We proposed one balance in the White Paper and invited comments on it; I hope that the process of consultation will help us to find a consensus on judging the balance between elected, appointed and party Members.
	No Governmentand, for that matter, no House of Commonscan settle matters for all time, but if we are to proceed with legislation I hope that it will stand the test of some time.

George Young: The House will have noted that the Leader of the House did not answer the interesting questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about whether the various imperatives on membership can be reconciled. However, I wish to make a different point. Throughout debate on the second Chamber, the Government have said that they are anxious to achieve a consensus. If it becomes clear that a consensus is more likely to be achieved at a higher level of elected representatives than currently proposed, will they obstruct the securing of that consensus?

Robin Cook: The point of consultation is to try to reach consensus. We must respect whatever consensus emerges from it.

David Clelland: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the disadvantages of a wholly elected second Chamber, but I regret that I cannot give him a pass mark. His announcement today represents the worst of all worlds: part patronage, part appointment by a committee that will doubtless choose people who resemble its members, and part election, with the danger of the clash of mandates to which he referred. Will he consider an indirectly elected Chamber, with representatives from business, trade unions, regional and local government and religious organisations? It would contain the expertise and experience to scrutinise and improve legislation.

Robin Cook: I recognise the force of the case for indirect elections, although, from listening to hon. Members, I am not sure whether my hon. Friend struck the note of consensus for which we are searching. So far, only a minority of the United Kingdom is covered by an elected regional body. Many inside and outside the House would be reluctant to support indirect election by unelected bodies.

Henry Bellingham: Does not the Leader of the House believe that the current reformed Chamber is working wellindeed, according to many observers, better than ever? Can he give one example of a way in which it does not work? Today's proposals are a dog's breakfast. We should keep the House of Lords as it is, or hold full-scale elections for the second Chamber.

Robin Cook: I refer the hon. Gentleman to Bernard Shaw's observation that a Government consisting of the hundred tallest people in Britain might work well, but that does not mean that it would be a good system. In my opening statement, I pointed out the flaws in the current House of Lords: hereditary peers are still there; no Member is elected, and its membership does not reflect the balance of the way in which the nation voted. The proposals will rectify that; those issues of principle are worth tackling.

Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend said that the proposals would create a modern second Chamber. They may do many things, but they will not achieve that. Legitimacy comes only from election. Many Labour Membersand I am sure, many Labour party members, if they were properly consultedwould call for an elected second Chamber. My fear, which has been echoed by Opposition Members, is that the proposals are so inherently complex that they cannot satisfy all our expectations. I ask my right hon. Friend to put on his influential Labour party hat as a member of the national policy forum and tell us whether there will be proper consultation in the party by 31 January to ascertain its members' views of the proposals.

Robin Cook: Of course, the Labour party, like every party, will be consulted. I hope that consultation will enable us to build cross-party consensus. I understand the force of my hon. Friend's argument, but I cannot understand how we can have a wholly elected second Chamber without breeding conflict and competition. If my hon. Friend wants us to cede power to the second Chamber, he must be honest with himself and others. I note that some Conservative Members are nodding at the idea of ceding power to the second Chamber. I do not want to take through a measure that will result in the undermining of the powers and prerogatives of the House of Commons.

John Thurso: I add my welcome to the White Paper on Lords reform. I commend to the Leader of the House the inclusion of a provision to allow existing life peers to retire. I raised the matter on Second Reading of the House of Lords Act 1999 in the other place and said that, at present, the only way out was in a box.
	The combination of reducing the powers on secondary legislation and the low numbers that are proposed for election leaves the second Chamber as neither fish nor fowl. Are not the proposals a small step for democracy and a giant leap for complacency?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for an escape hatch that does not involve a box. It remains to be seen how many life peers might be interested in that process of retirement, but it would be important in enabling us to meet the cap of 600 to which other hon. Members have referred.
	I do not have a problem with making a proposal that involves mixed membership of the House of Lords. Indeed, as I said earlier, mixed membership is essential to ensure that the House of Lords complements, rather than competes with, this Chamber. It is a matter of judgmentand a matter for valid debate on that judgmentas to what should be the basis for, and proportion of, that mixture. That is why we are producing the White Paper and putting it out for consultation.

Calum MacDonald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can sometimes be a conflict between having a fully democratic Chamber and one that is fully representative in the sense of reflecting the wider society? Given that this Chamber is a democratic Chamber, does it not make sense to have one that is more representative, that reflects society outside, and that has more women and ethnic minorities and, hopefully, fewer lawyers?

Robin Cook: We have not drafted any statutory provision to control the number of lawyers appointed but, obviously, I shall try to absorb the feeling of the House on that point in any proposals that we introduce after consultation.
	My hon. Friend has a point. Ethnic minority communities are now better represented in the second Chamber than they are here. I hope that, in the course of achieving the progress that we want to make on the second Chamber, we shall achieve a reasonable balance between the genders more quickly than it looks as though we shall here. There are ways in which representation can be achieved other than through the ballot box. That is an important element, which is why we are proposing an element of elected members.

Andrew Turner: I congratulate the Leader of the House on the inclusion in his proposals of what might be called a Kagan clause. I also congratulate him on his desire to achieve fair representation of nations and regions in the upper House. Is he aware that, of the 267 persons elevated to the peerage since 1 May 1997, three come from the east midlands, five from the north-east, seven from Wales and seven from Northern Ireland? I shall not go on, except to say that 117 appointees come from London. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, in making the new, balanced range of appointments, the Appointments Commission and the political parties are asked to correct that deplorable imbalance achieved by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

Robin Cook: I am not immediately persuaded that Lord Kagan was the name in most people's minds when I read that passage of my speech. On the hon. Gentleman's other point, it is our objective to try to achieve fairer representation by region and by nation in the United Kingdom. That will be a statutory requirement, and it will be binding not only on the Appointments Commission but on the parties.

Malcolm Savidge: I warmly welcome the abolition of the absurd anachronism of hereditary peers. On the assumption that almost anything must be an improvement, may I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, if only on the ground that the proposed bizarre hotchpotch might at least be a stage on the road to a democratically elected second Chamber with powers limited by statute?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome, as far as it went. I agree that this represents progress. Parliamentary reform, in either Chamber, takes the form of evolution rather than revolution, and I encourage him to accept this as a step forward. If he wishes, during the consultation, to encourage us to go further, that is his prerogative.

Alistair Carmichael: I commend the Leader of the House for his proposal to reduce the number of bishops in the second Chamber from 26 to 16. May I suggest that his proposals would be greatly improved if that figure were to be reduced by a further 16? Surely, in the 21st century, we should have representation from all faiths and denominations or from none at all.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman and I both come from a country that went to war to get rid of bishops; I should place that interest on the table before I respond. The Wakeham Commission examined this point with considerable care and attention, and came to the conclusion that it was right that there should be representatives of faiths in the second Chamber, but that that should not rest solely with the 26 bishops. That is why it proposed a reduction in their numbers. It suggested that, for balance, a fixed number should be appointed from other faiths, and we have wrestled with that proposal for some time. However, it is impossible to reduce the many other faiths in Britain to a pro rata formula, which is why we shall invite the Appointments Commission to ensure that those faiths are properly represented and that, where appropriate, their leaders can be included on the Cross Benches.

Peter Pike: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement that hereditary peers, who sit in the House of Lords because of what their ancestors didwhich, in many cases, was neither worthy nor creditableare now to go? I hope that, during the consultation period, we consider two priorities: accountability and improved legislation. I know that my right hon. Friend is keen to see improved legislation, and the second Chamber should play a role in that. It should therefore be composed of people with the expertise to look at legislation constructively and positively so that, ultimately, Parliament produces a better form of legislation.

Robin Cook: I have no idea whether what my ancestors were doing five centuries ago was creditable or otherwise, but I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that that should not be the basis on which I or anybody else has a seat in Parliament. It should be on the basis of what we can contribute and represent.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that, if we want intelligent legislation, particularly legislation that reflects the rapidly changing society and technology in the world outside, we need to give people who have an expertise that we do not necessarily have access to Parliament. Standing for election is an unusual activity, which will always be attractive only to a small minority of the population. It is right that there should be another route by which those who have something to offer but do not wish to stand for election can take part in debates and legislation.

Lady Hermon: I welcome the reform of the House of Lords. I am particularly pleased that it is not a fully elected second Chamber.
	May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to part of his statement:
	The Government believe that the proportion of appointed party Members should broadly match the distribution of votes between the parties at the most recent general election.
	As he knows, at the last general election five Sinn Fein members were returned from Northern Ireland. They have not represented their constituents in the House because they failed to take the Oath of Allegiance. What measures do the Government intend to take to persuade Sinn Fein members to take up their position within the House of Lords?

Robin Cook: The hon. Lady will be aware that the White Paper provides that the threshold for membership of the House of Lords be varied in regions where parties stand only in those regions. That means that we shall not apply the percentage figure across the UK for parties that stand only in a part of the UK. That point is of importance to Scotland and Wales, as well as to Northern Ireland.
	On the position of Sinn Fein, it is more a matter of whether Sinn Fein wishes to take part in this Chamber. I doubt whether we shall appoint Sinn Fein Members to the second Chamber until such time as they may wish to take part in this Chamber.

Tony Wright: May I welcome the Government's conversion to the principle of a mixed- membership second Chamber, which ensures that we have a Chamber that is neither a rival to, nor a replica of, this House and that we have enough election to secure legitimacy, but enough appointment to secure expertise and independence?
	In making its proposals, the Wakeham Commission was sensitive to the charge that any new House would be seen as a House of patronage, which is why its central and most radical recommendation was that all appointments should be made by an independent Appointments Commission. Why do the Government seem to have rejected that recommendation?

Robin Cook: I agree that we must ensure that there is a channel through which people with expertise and independence of mind can take part in parliamentary debates. He is correct about what the royal commission recommended: that the independent Appointments Commission appoint not only Cross Benchers but party representatives. We have not accepted that argument for the simple and straightforward reason that we cannot conceive of a major political party submitting to a situation in which its representatives were chosen by people who were not members of that party, and I doubt whether the official Opposition would submit to it either.
	I notice that Lord Wakeham himself seems to be resiling from that recommendation. In this week's The House Magazine, he is quoted as saying:
	I have always envisaged that the overwhelming bulk of the political nominees would come by nomination of their party leaders.
	That is precisely what is before the House in this White Paper.

Tom Levitt: I welcome the broad thrust of today's proposals, particularly those on measures to ensure the continued primacy of this Chamber. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the new second Chamber is to be a working Chamber, and that there should be at least a minimum level of attendance and participation, particularly for appointed Members, on which continued membership of the Chamber depends?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We shall seek to construct a second Chamber that will be a functioning second Chamber capable of providing added value to our debates on legislation and scrutiny of the Executive. It is important that those who take their place there maintain a reasonable attendance record. People will be chosen not only for what they have to offer but for their willingness to ensure that they do contribute to those debates.

WTO Ministerial Conference

Patricia Hewitt: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the World Trade Organisation and the fourth ministerial conference that starts in Doha later this week.
	Even before 11 September, a new world trade round was a high priority. Further expansion of world tradefree and fair world tradeoffers the best opportunity to people in developing countries to escape from poverty. With the economies of Japan, the USA and Europe faltering, a new world trade round offered real benefits to the west as well. However, the atrocity of 11 September has made a new trade round even more important, both politically and economically.
	In the past eight weeks, we have helped to create an extraordinary international consensus to fight terrorism and strengthen world security. We must, however, also fight terror with trade. As the US trade representative Bob Zoellick has said, we need a global alliance for openness and fairness that
	understands that the staying power of the new coalition depends on economic growth and hope.
	By launching a new world trade round in Doha next week, we will show that the nations of the world are determined to strengthen their security by sharing prosperity. We will also inject fresh confidence into a world economy that was further hit by the atrocity on 11 September.
	A new round will bring benefits at home and abroad. As the world's fifth largest trader, for the United Kingdom the potential benefits of further trade liberalisation are considerable. On a global level, if we could just halve trade protection in both developing and the developed countries, we would boost world income by about $400 billion a year. That would mean an increase in the wealth of developing countries of about $150 billion a year, which is about three times what they receive each year in development aid. The average income of every household in Britain would be boosted by almost 500 a year.
	I shall be leading the United Kingdom delegation in Doha and will be joined by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister for the Environment and by my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment. I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom delegation will once again include a representative each from business, the unions and other non-governmental organisations.
	I should like briefly to outline our objectives at Doha. If this trade round is to be a success, we must put social justice and poverty reduction at its heart. That means the reduction and, where possible, the elimination of trade barriers, particularly those in developed countries that hamper exports from the developing world. It means agreeing rules that properly reflect WTO members' different levels of development and a sustained effort by the richer countries of the world to build the capacity of the developing countries to trade and to participate effectively in the WTO.
	I am delighted that, earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced a further increase in the United Kingdom's investment in capacity building in developing countries. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister wrote to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank urging them to make a further joint commitment to help the least developed countries build their capacity to trade and to participate in the WTO.
	The 49 poorest countries of the world account for almost 11 per cent. of the world's population, but less than 0.5 per cent. of the world's exports, and that tiny percentage has been decreasing. Those countries, which most need trade to raise them out of poverty, face significant trade barriers. That is why we in the European Union, through the everything but arms agreement, are giving the poorest countries in the world duty-free and quota-free access to our European markets for all their goods except arms. At Doha, my colleagues and I will be urging other WTO members to commit themselves to the same everything but arms objectiveduty-free and quota-free access throughout the developed world for the least developed countries.
	We must also ensure that people in the developing world get access to the medicines that they need. I know that that is a matter of concern to the whole House. Britain has already committed $200 million to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and since 1997 we have committed 1 billion to primary health care services in poor countries.
	Developing countries believe, however, that the WTO's rules on intellectual property rights inhibit their access to essential medicines, particularly to deal with the devastating HIV/AIDS pandemic in southern Africa. It is important to ensure that intellectual property rights continue to provide an incentive for companies to keep on developing medicines, but I believe that by clarifying and properly using the flexibility provided within existing rules we can ensure that all Governments are able to act to protect the public during health crises.
	Discussions on the form and content of the new round have entered their final stages. All parties have been spurred on to greater efforts to resolve their differences and reach agreement on the basis for launching a new round, but there are still some very tough issues that we shall have to tackle in the week that lies ahead. Let me refer briefly to the other elements in the new round that we view as a priority.
	First, there is agriculture. We must make a real commitment to liberalisation, and linked to that is further major reform of the European common agricultural policy. Protectionism in all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, including countries of the Cairns group that lead the cry against European subsidies, is estimated to cost developing countries some $20 billion a year.
	Secondly, there is the environment. We strongly support European Union efforts to bring environmental issues into the negotiation. We want trade liberalisation to deliver environmental benefits, and we want to ensure that WTO rules do not undermine legitimate environmental policy; but we also want to ensure that environmental standards should not be used as a form of back-door protectionism. Multilateral rules on trade and on the environment can work in a mutually supportive way, but we need greater clarity about the interaction between them.
	Thirdly, we want to include negotiations on foreign direct investment and competition with a view to a simple, basic framework of rules based on transparency and non-discrimination. Those rules could give business a stable and predictable climate, and help developing countries to attract the foreign direct investment that they need.
	Fourthly, there are services. We are the world's second largest exporter of services, so of course we want to open up markets in more service sectors; but let me make it clear that we have no intention of making any commitments that could call into question our ability to maintain public services provided through the national health service or the state education system.
	Finally, there are labour standards. As we expand world trade, we must also promote higher labour standards around the world. The International Labour Organisation is the right place to set those labour standards, but we shall be seeking a broader dialogue between the ILO and other international organisations, including the WTO.
	Labour Members believe that social justice and a successful economy go together. That is what we are building here in Britain, and that is what we must achieve internationally: opening markets and tackling world poverty. The WTO meeting this week is a huge opportunity for 142 nations to move forward together at a time of great uncertainty. The United Kingdom is in a unique position to contribute, as an active player at the heart of the European Union, a strong ally of the United States, and a vigorous supporter of the Commonwealth. In Doha, we will use that position to help secure an agenda for free and fair tradeto launch a trade round that benefits Britain, but above all benefits the poorest people of our world.

John Whittingdale: I thank the Secretary of State for her courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of her statement. I also welcome the fact that she is making a statement at all. It is unusual to do so in advance of a meeting, but it is also helpful in that it provides us with a yardstick by which to measure the Government's success in achieving their objectives. I would also be grateful if she confirmed that it is her intention to make a further statement to the House once the conference is over.
	I wish to join the Secretary of State in emphasising the importance of achieving a new world trade round. The expansion of global free trade will bring huge benefits, not only to us in this country but to the developing world, as she rightly said. There were some who suggested that the meeting in Doha might have to be postponed as a result of the terrorist attacks in America and the action that has followed them. I unreservedly welcome the decision not to postpone. The choice of the World Trade Centre as one of the targets for attack was deliberate and one of the ways in which we can best demonstrate our resolve is by going ahead with the conference.
	The Secretary of State is right to say that the success of the trade round will be measured by the extent to which barriers to trade are reduced. But does she accept that to do so will involve some pain and sacrifice on the part of all concerned? Does she recognise that the last set of talks in Seattle was a disappointment, and that by insisting on a broad agenda little of substance was achieved at all? Does she agree that, contrary to the views of some well meaningand indeed some less well meaningorganisations, the biggest losers from that failure were the countries of the developing world? Does she accept that under the existing rules it may prove almost impossible to achieve consensus among all members, and that the WTO itself may now therefore be in need of serious reform?
	Does the Secretary of State recognise that while the European Union has achieved much in terms of reducing barriers to trade between member states, the EU still maintains some 15,000 tariffs against countries outside the European club? Does she accept that the EU common tariff wall not only costs European consumers a huge amount but is depriving developing countries of vital opportunities to export to our markets? At the same time, will she accept that if we are to open up our markets to more competition, it is equally important that the Government act to improve the competitiveness of British industry, rather than reducing it by imposing ever more tax and regulation?
	The Secretary of State rightly identified the need for liberalisation in agriculture as a key priority. But will she accept that despite the commitments made at successive European summits, very little has been achieved? Can she say what progress has been made in persuading some of the more recalcitrant EU member states to make the reforms that are necessary?
	On services, does the Secretary of State recognise that a balance needs to be struck between trade liberalisation and proper consumer protection? Does she also accept that an equal balance is necessary with the concerns of environmental protection, but that it is vital that neither issue should become an excuse to prevent agreement?
	On intellectual property, will the Secretary of State recognise that intellectual property rights are not a form of protectionism but necessary to encourage and reward research and development? Does she acknowledge that weakening those rights risks reducing pharmaceutical research and development and slowing medical innovation? Can she say what discussions she has had with our European partners on that matter; and can she confirm that it is the Government's view that the main responsibility for making cheaper medicine available to the third world should rest with Governments, not the pharmaceutical industry?
	Finally, can the Secretary of State say what will be the effect of China's joining the WTO? Does she agree that the opening up of China's markets represents a tremendous opportunity, but at the same time is bound to have tremendous implications for enterprises in that country?
	Doha represents an immense opportunity to boost economic prosperity throughout the world. I therefore end by wishing the Secretary of State and her colleagues every success. We look forward to her report back to the House.

Patricia Hewitt: I thank the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) for the courteous welcome that he has given my statement. I thank him too for the good wishes that he has expressed, to me and to the delegation. I considered that it would helpful to inform the House of the Government's negotiating position at Doha, and in the same way I can confirm that I shall report back on the outcome of the talks after the conference has taken place.
	The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about decision making in the World Trade Organisation. There is no doubt that one of the hard lessons learned at Seattle was that all WTO membersand the organisation is very largemust be able to participate fully in the decision-making process. We think that that can best be achieved by building consensus and by improving communication, both inside the organisation itself and with external bodies.
	The work undertaken in the WTO general council in Geneva has already gone a long way to achieving that greater openness. All WTO members are conscious that the negotiating process at Doha needs to be more transparent and inclusive for all member Governments than was the case at Seattle. However, we shall continue to seek ways to formalise those improvements in the WTO's ways of working, in parallel with establishing a new trade round.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of tariffs in the European Union, which are immensely damaging to developing countries seeking to export their way out of poverty. As I made clear in my statementand as Commissioner Lamy has made clear on behalf of the EUwe are and must be prepared to negotiate reductions in many of those tariffs, or their elimination, as part of a new round. Through unilateral action, we have already done the same in relation to the everything but arms initiative, to which I referred earlier.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned those businesses in Britain and elsewhere in the EU that fear competition from lower-wage countries in the developing world. It is essential that we support those companies, and above all their workers. By helping them to move to higher value-added production, we can remain competitive with the rest of the world.
	In the textile sector, for instance, the work force and some businesses are especially concerned about the impact of the phasing out of the multi-fibre agreement. We are already working with business and the trade unions to improve the productivity and competitiveness of the sector, in particular by helping businesses move into the field of technical textiles.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as I did, agricultural subsidies in the EU. I can confirm that we have been pressing our European colleagues on that matter for some years. Reform of the common agricultural policy is absolutely essential, not only because there is a need to agree a new world trade round, but also because we must move forward to enlargement of the EU. I agree with him about the need to strike a proper balance with regard to services and the environment.
	In addition, I wish to underline what I said about the need to ensure that there is intellectual property protection for companies, given that pharmaceutical companies invest millions in the development of each new drug that they bring to market. There is no serious proposal on the table that the TRIPStrade-related aspects of intellectual property rightsagreement should be renegotiated within the WTO.
	We must act to improve access to medicines in the developing countries, and I described the other actions that we can take outside the WTO to make that possible. However, the pharmaceutical companies to which I have spoken recently made it clear that they too are willing to play their part in ensuring that cheaper medicines even those under patent protectionare available in developing countries.
	Finally, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the enormous importance of China's accession to the World Trade Organisation, which we have warmly welcomed. That has enormous implications for world trade, as that country has the second largest economy in the world. We shall continue to work closely with the Government in China to ensure that the potential of its accession is fully recognised.

Tam Dalyell: I thank the Secretary of State for her seriousness of purpose, and also express my appreciation of the good senseand, if I may say so, good parliamentary mannersof her coming to the House pre-conference rather than post-conference. Is she aware that both today and tomorrow a heavyweight delegation from the Philippines are guests of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and that during discussions this morning its members stressed the problems of central Mindanao, where there is a serious dissident terrorist problem for both the Muslim and the indigenous community? They argued that if there could be trade in the tropical fruits of that area, and entry into the European market for that trade, many of the terrorist problems would probably be overcome.
	We are the biggest investors in the Philippines, so at Doha, will my right hon. Friend make a point of asking her officials to contact the Filipinos? I know that the Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), has close connections with the railways, so he will be glad to hear that it was the British, from Plymouth and Scotland, who built the railways in the Philippines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be astonished to hear that, when she comes back, there will be a question on the Order Paper asking what she has done by way of contacting the Filipinos about trade in fruits and related matters.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his question; perhaps I can give him notice of my answer. I was not aware that there was a delegation from the Philippines here at the moment, but I will certainly ensure that my officials, and if possible one of the Ministers, speak directly to the delegation while we are in Doha. Because of my visit to the Philippines some time ago, I am well aware of both the terrorist problem and the trade problem to which my hon. Friend refers, and I hope that we will be able to make an advance in that respect through securing a new round of negotiations at Doha.

Vincent Cable: May I add my welcome for the Secretary of State's timely statement, and take the opportunity to reiterate my belief that an open and liberal trading system, strengthened by this round, is exactly the way to counter the present crisis of confidence in the international economy, and particularly to help developing countries to progress through trade, which, as she rightly says, is the primary objective of the new round? I also ask her to go a little further and condemn some of the weasel words of her fellow Trade Ministers and Commission officials in Europe, who are still resisting the idea that radical trade liberalisation in agriculture and other protected sectors, such as textiles, has to happen, and that those product areas are crucial for all developing countries, not just the least developed. Will she also make it clearer than she did in her statement that although it is right to strive for enhanced environmental and labour standards, there is no economic or moral justification for allowing such barriers to be used as an obstruction to trade with countries that are too poor to afford those standards?
	Finally, as the Secretary of State for International Development has joined her on the Front Bench, may I ask the right hon. Lady to emulate her colleague's forthright and occasionally courageous stance against some of the myths of the anti-globalisation movement, which are influential and do great damage? In particular, will she dismiss the fashionable myth that the World Trade Organisation exists to undermine public health and education, when it does nothing of the kind?

Patricia Hewitt: I have already saidI made the point in a speech yesterdaythat well meaning though many, if not quite all, of them are, those who oppose world trade and the World Trade Organisation are doing a massive disservice to the people whom they believe they are helpingthe people of the poorest countries in the world. I offer one illustration of that fact. Thirty years ago South Korea was a far poorer country than Nigeria. Today the people of South Korea are 30 times richer than the people of Nigeria. One reason is the very different approach to world trade pursued not only by South Korea but by countries in other parts of south-east Asia.
	I have also made it clear, publicly and privately, as have my right hon. Friends, that we in Europe must stop dragging our feet on agricultural reform. We know from our experience of the foot and mouth crisis that reform of our farming system and our farming subsidies is increasingly urgent. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, it is also essential, in the interests of enlargement of the European Union as well as the interests of people in developing countries, that we reduce those agricultural subsidies.
	We are already committed, as a result of the Uruguay round, to phasing out the multi-fibre agreement on textiles. As far as investment and competition are concerned, we are seeking to strengthen the rules that will enable much greater foreign direct investmentnot speculative flowsin developing countries that urgently need that capital to improve their infrastructure.
	I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for the position that we are taking at Doha.

Alan Simpson: What consideration has the United Kingdom given to its negotiating position in relation to these talks? About three key elements and objections have been raised from the south. First, it is inappropriate to enter a further round of World Trade Organisation negotiations when the north has not honoured the promises made to the south in the Uruguay round.
	Secondly, what consideration has the Secretary of State given to the representations set out in the document produced and published yesterday by 20 UK NGOs, in conjunction with their sister organisations in the developing world, as part of the Trade Justice Movement? The document points to the fact that liberalisation to date has amounted to little more than deregulation in the private interest rather than fair regulation in the public interest.
	Finally, will the UK respond to the cries of the developing world to stop the destruction of its domestic agricultural systems by the dumping of subsidised food produce from the industrial world?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises three important points. Although I understand the concerns of developing countries that we need to settle the implementation of the agreements entered into in the Uruguay round before embarking on a new one, I think that those concerns have, to a significant extent, been allayed by the progress that we have made, particularly in the past few weeks, on the outstanding implementation questions. About 100 of those issues have been considered in great detail in recent weeks in the World Trade Organisation and, in particular, between Commissioner Lamy and Ambassador Zoellick. At the recent meeting in Singapore, we made considerable progress on a first basket of implementation agreements addressing some of the most urgent concerns, and I believe that we can make substantial progress at Doha and in the context of a new round.
	My hon. Friend referred to the concerns of the British NGOs, some of whom I met yesterday. We will, of course, have a representative of the development movement NGOs in the delegation, as well as representatives from the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. However, let me underline the point that I made in response to an earlier question. Non-governmental and development organisations sometimes misrepresent what is going on and what we are seeking to achieve in a new round. It is important to draw attention to initiatives such as the everything but arms agreement which has been and will be of enormous benefit to the least developed countries of the world, and which we are seeking to extend substantially through the new negotiations.
	Thirdly, I agree with my hon. Friend about the damage that is done to domestic agriculture sectors in developing countries by the dumping of subsidised agricultural produce produced in the developed world. That is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard in the talks for agriculture reform.

Tony Baldry: Will the Secretary of State comment on reports that, at a meeting of the least-developed countries group last week in Geneva, concern was expressed that none of those countries' input was getting through to the draft Doha declaration? At the same time, Stuart Harbison was saying that the draft declaration was now final. Given that, within the politics of the possible, progress on trade-related intellectual property will be slow, can the Secretary of State confirm that the $200 million that the Government are giving to the global health fund is not a one-off payment, and that there will be further contributions in the future? It would be good news if the Secretary of State for International Development could also confirm that.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has enormous expertise and commitment on these matters. We with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Developmentare trying to ensure that the global health fund works effectively in starting to address the needs of people in the developing countries for access to medicine. If it does we shall of course seek to increase the size of the fund.
	The ability of the least-developed countries to contribute directly and to have their voice heard in the WTO negotiations is important. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend has been increasing so substantially UK investment in capacity building in those countries, so that they can have a more effective voice in the WTO. I assure the hon. Gentleman that both my right hon. Friend and I will continue to ensure that the voice of those countries is heard during the negotiations in the week ahead.

Harry Barnes: The third world needs access to resources, and measures to stop the further undermining of their economies. The Secretary of State will be aware that one proposal is that there should be an international tax on currency speculation, including chasing money in tax havenssomething we now say that we can do because of bin Laden. The tax is known as the Tobin tax, although Tobin himself may have gone off the idea a bit. Such a tax would dampen down speculation and raise massive resources. Should it not be discussed at the WTOat least in an exploratory formsince some Governments have begun to take it on board, and especially since Tobin initially thought that the WTO could be one of the avenues through which the tax could operate?

Patricia Hewitt: As my hon. Friend rightly says, James Tobin seems to be rather sceptical about his idea, so we may have to rename the Tobin tax[Hon. Members: The Barnes tax.] Indeed, the Barnes tax. Perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend: as the Chancellor recently made clear, the proposal for a Tobin tax, or for some system that would raise revenue internationally and dedicate it to world development, is already being discussed, within ECOFIN at European level, and also internationally, in the United Nations and the OECD.

Adam Price: The Secretary of State stresses the need to bring benefits to the poorest countries, with which I am sure we all agree. However, in that case, I fail to understand why she does not even consider as serious the proposals that many developing countries should have a public health exemption from international patent rules, thus enabling those poor countries to import cheap drugs to protect their citizensmuch as the United States has been able to do recently with the anti-anthrax drug, Cipro. It will be interesting to learn what discussions she holds with the Secretary of State for International Development on that vital issue. Will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry promise the House that she will bring pressure to bear on her American colleagues to ensure that the same trading concessions are given to Nigeria, India and other textile-producing countries as to Pakistan; or will the rules of trade continue to be based not on justice and equity but on the economic self-interest of the west?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises two important points. We believe that the flexibility that already exists in TRIPS within the WTO rules enables the Governments of developing countries to obtain the medicines that they need to care for their people during a public health emergency. One of our objectives at Doha is to ensure that that is sufficiently well understood and clarified to enable us to reach agreement.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman that if we simply set aside intellectual property rights we will destroy the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest massively in the research needed to develop new drugs to deal not only with diseases in the developed world but with the diseases of poverty.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises the considerable efforts and risks that the Government and people of Pakistan are taking in relation to the terrorism of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. He will also recognise the real efforts that the authorities in Pakistan are making to deal with the menace of drugs. It is in recognition of both facts that the European Commission has recently made a proposal, which we support, for bilateral improvements in the textiles arrangements with Pakistan. I certainly hope that the United States of America will take a similar position.
	I fully understand the concerns within our own industry on that subject, and I recently met the employers and KFAT, the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades, to discuss the subject. It is appropriate that we recognise the efforts that Pakistan is making and take further steps, along with those that we shall be taking in the WTO, to assist Pakistan to export in a sector that is of enormous importance to it.

Roger Casale: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and welcome the emphasis that I know she will place, on behalf of the British Government at Doha, on using any forthcoming trade round to eliminate poverty around the world, and allowing the world's poorest economies to develop their potential through trade at the same time as we move to unshackle the world's poorest societies from the unmeetable and unbearable burden of debt. Does she share my concern that, despite the popular impression that the process of globalisation is accelerating, we are experiencing not only a global slowdown in economic growth around the world but, critically, an even greater slowdown in the growth of trade as a share of world output? Is it not the case that trade liberalisation must be an overriding imperative for the world community, not least because global recession would have catastrophic consequences for the world's poor?

Patricia Hewitt: I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. We face a real slowdown in economic growth, in trade and in foreign investment, especially in the developing countries. The real disaster would be if, in response to the economic slowdown, the countries of the developed world were to retreat into isolation and protectionism. Our best response to the economic slowdown as well as the terrorist attacks is to advance the cause of free and fair world trade, in the interests of the developing countries above all but also of the west.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will be aware that the linkages between issues are some of the most important aspects of the trade round. May I invite her to add a little more on the question of the linkage between the European Union proposals for the reduction or elimination of tariff barriers and the desirability of increasing the effectiveness of competition authorities in other countries? She said that they should be non-discriminatory and transparent, but will she also make it clear that they should be independent and effective? If they are not, there is a risk that anti-dumping measures will be adopted as a way of reintroducing some of the protection that is otherwise forgone.

Patricia Hewitt: Anti-dumping is one of the largest issues in the implementation basket that we have to consider, and the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the need for effective competition authorities is absolutely right. If we can achieve more effective regimes for competition and investment across the world, we shall create a much better climate for foreign direct investment around the world. However, we must also recognise that, for developing countries with very little governmental capacity, those are difficult new issues that we are asking them to take on. I believe that we shall make progress on that at Doha, but we shall then need to reassure developing countries that we are not asking them to do too much, too quicklyagain, another reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been boosting our investment in capacity building.

John Battle: Every day, poor countries lose some 1.4 billion because of unfair trade rules, while a quarter of the world's wealth is owned by 200 transnational corporations, so more just trade rules are crucial. Although I generally welcome my right hon. Friend's positive approach to the Doha conference, may I tell her not to put all her faith in improving and getting fairer international trade rules and urge her also to encourage and support local and regional trading, which is vital to poorer countries' economies?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes. Local and regional trading agreements are not an alternative to the multilateral trading agreements that we can achieve through the World Trade Organisation, but as our own experience in Europe demonstrates, they are none the less extremely important, especially to developing countries, for which they undoubtedly represent the best route out of poverty.

Christopher Chope: Will the Secretary of State tell us what specific proposals the European Union has to put on the table at the conference in relation to liberalisation in trade in food, which is fundamental to resolving world poverty issues? Will she tell the House how many of her 14 colleagues from other EU countries she thinks support her commendable philosophy of world trade liberalisation?

Patricia Hewitt: Of course, the EU and the European Commissioner negotiate in the WTO on behalf of all 15 members of the EU. Commissioner Lamy, to whom I pay tribute for his work so far, is clear about the negotiating remit that the EU has given him and about the need to secure agreement on moving forward on agricultural liberalisation. There are non-trade issues, including animal welfare, about which the European public have expressed real concern, but, as with environmental issues, the developing countries can view them as thinly disguised protectionism, and we need to reassure them about that. Of course, the specific proposals will be a matter for the negotiations themselves. Our objective at Doha is, in effect, to agree the terms of reference for that new round.

Judy Mallaber: My right hon. Friend has referred to the concerns expressed in the clothing and textiles sector. Will she expand on what issues relating to the sector she thinks may be raised during the talksand what is the Government's position on them?

Patricia Hewitt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done with the textiles industry, which is enormously important in her constituency and, indeed, in mine. The textiles issue is immensely important to developing countries, which is why they seek further liberalisation and, in particular, a reduction of tariff barriers in the western countries, and we will consider that issue very carefully. As I said in my recent discussions with industry and union leaders, we will also consider ways in which we can work even more effectively to ensureas quotas are phased out, which we have already undertaken to do, and as tariffs are reducednot only that the industry can move even more effectively into more advanced and higher-value-added products but that any tariff reductions that we make are matched by tariff reductions in developing countries, enabling our industry to gain access for its products to new markets in other parts of the world.

Richard Allan: I am pleased that the Secretary of State referred to intellectual property, but disappointed that it is not one of the United Kingdom's priorities for Doha. Does she recognise that the concentration of intellectual property rights in the wealthiest countries could be harmful? Although the intellects that lie behind the property come from all over the world, the rights invariably end up in the home countries of the largest companies. Is she worried that the structural inability to develop strong portfolios of intellectual property in some developing countries may work against their need to reduce poverty?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Many developing countries are concerned about the impact of intellectual property rights on traditional knowledge, especially in medicines and health. We are considering that, as is the World Trade Organisation. I hope that we will make progress on that as a result of the Doha negotiations.

David Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the WTO far too often reinforces the existing competitive advantage of developed nations? Do not some of the proposals for further trade liberalisation at Doha breach basic rules on cultural diversity, environmental sustainability and respect for human rights? If so, what will she do about that in the delegation?

Patricia Hewitt: I regret to say that I do not agree with the assumption underlying my hon. Friend's question, although I am aware of his concerns. Doha will allow us to identify much more effectively how we ensure that further liberalisation of world trade works to the advantage of the environment, development and, therefore, human rights. That is our goal. The development that has occurred in many parts of the world as a result of world trade liberalisation in the past 50 years is a sign that if we continue to build an effective World Trade Organisation and strengthen the rules for free and fair trade we can achieve the objective of spreading sustainable prosperity across the world.

Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for her commitment to openness and fairness in the next round of trade negotiations this week. I accept, as I am sure she does, that there is no level playing field in the trade between the south and north. She will appreciate the concerns of developing countries about the benefits of the WTO negotiations. Will she support their demand for an independent impact assessment of the WTO policies before we press the south for further liberalisation of its trade?

Patricia Hewitt: It is important to assess the impact of trade liberalisation measures, and work is being done on that. However, for some measuresfor example, in relation to textilesit will not be possible to get full evidence on the impact of liberalisation until we have concluded the phasing out of the multi-fibre agreement in 2005. I am sure that more can be done, especially within international agreements, to build up an assessment of the impact. Let me stress, however, that there is already good evidence of the beneficial impact of fair trade on developing countries, which should enable us with confidence to agree the beginning of a new round of negotiations at the ministerial conference this week.

BILL PRESENTED

Employment Bill

Ms Secretary Hewitt, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mrs. Secretary Liddell, Secretary Estelle Morris, Alan Johnson and Malcolm Wicks, presented a Bill to make provision for statutory rights to paternity and adoption leave and pay; to amend the law relating to statutory maternity leave and pay; to amend the Employment Tribunals Act 1996; to make provision for the use of statutory procedures in relation to employment disputes; to amend the law relating to particulars of employment; to make provision about compromise agreements; to make provision for questionnaires in relation to equal pay; to make provision in connection with trade union learning representatives; to amend section 110 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; to make provision about fixed-term work; to amend the law relating to maternity allowance; to make provision for work-focused interviews for partners of benefit claimants; to make provision about the use of information for, or relating to, employment and training; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 44].

Hospital Inspectorate

Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent inspectorate of hospitals to provide independent inspection of waiting lists, waiting times, hospital efficiency and clinical cleanliness.
	The Bill is about standards in hospitals. Some 75,000 people had their operations cancelled last year, and nearly 300,000 people are waiting simply to get on an out-patient waiting list. The Bill will set up an independent body, so that when the Government talk about improvements in the NHS, patients will be able to see whether there is evidence of such improvements.
	The independent hospital inspectorate that the Bill will establish will be very different from the Commission for Health Improvement. The commission says that it has influence, but there is no point in having influence if it does not lead to improvement. Clearly, an independent inspectorate is needed to respond to the recommendations of the Bristol inquiry and similar investigations, as well as to patients' concerns, to identify weaknesses in the NHS and impartially to ensure accountability.
	Those objectives may be within the commission's remit, but the reality is rather more modest, as observed by a recent report in the Health Service Journal. It noted that few establishments in the NHS have experienced intervention. In the commission's first year, only four pilot reviews of acute trusts and two specialist investigations have been carried out, and that is a pathetic rate of inquiry. I very much doubt that Ofsted would have commanded any credibility if in its first year of operation it had inspected only four secondary schools and two primary schools.
	Patients need to be sure that hospitals are adequately inspected now, not in four years. The Bill seeks to ensure that the tasks that the Commission for Health Improvement should be doing will be done. The same Health Service Journal report observes that a further problem with the commission is that its reports raise as many questions as they answer and prompt a further inquiry. That suggests that the traffic light system of classifying trusts may run into trouble.
	There is little confidence in existing mechanisms to monitor standards in the NHS. The commission is clearly under pressure to claim success stories for the Government's NHS plan, which seriously calls into question its freedom. That is why the Bill calls for an independent NHS hospital inspectorate. Priority must be given to patients, not Government spin doctors trying to claim improvements when patently they are not taking place.
	Even the Audit Commission finds that its informative reports have little influence on results. Let us consider its recent report on accident and emergency admissions. It found that, nationally, nearly one third more people are now waiting longer for such admissions. Last June, at the Horton general hospital in Banbury in my constituency, 27 people had to wait more than 12 hours in accident and emergency before they were seen. On average then, almost every day one person had to wait more than 12 hours, whereas a year earlier none had to do so. The situation in our hospitals is getting worse, not better. The Audit Commission finds itself repeating the recommendations that it made five years ago. The Commission for Health Improvement is incapable of bringing about change, and the Audit Commission finds it hard to do so.
	We have introduced adequate inspection systems in other public services, such as Ofsted, which has done an enormous amount to make schools' performance more transparent, to improve accountability and to drive up standards. The Bill will establish an inspectorate that would seek honestly to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of NHS hospitals and trusts without scapegoating staff.
	That brings me back to the Government's policy of traffic light classification of NHS trusts as green, yellow or red, depending on their performance. That has introduced a crazy situation whereby trusts in areas that are having difficulties have their budgets cut, but those in areas where things are going well have their budgets enhanced. Perhaps the Government should pause and reflect that almost all the trusts that were recently found to merit no stars for performance on indicators such as accident and emergency admissions and trolley waits were in the south-east. I find it difficult to believe that weaknesses in NHS management are such a geographical phenomenon.
	Perhaps the real reason why hospitals and trusts such as the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust appear to perform so badly is as a consequence of staff shortages, especially shortages of nursing staff which are more acute and serious in the south-east. In Oxfordshirea county where long in-patient performance is already 60 per cent. away from targetthe Government's current policy will cause the position to worsen, as they take money away from the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust.
	Furthermore, simply threatening to sack NHS managers and scapegoating NHS staff is no solution. It certainly does not help my constituents. I doubt that I am alone in receiving almost daily representations from constituents who are frustrated either by the length of time it has taken them to get treatment, or by the number of times that their operation has been cancelled.
	From a large number of examples, let me offer a simple one. Last Saturday, Mr. Graham came to see me. All he wants is an out-patient appointment at the audiology clinic at the Radcliffe infirmary where his hearing can be tested to determine which hearing aid might be the most suitable for him. He was referred to the hospital by his GP in January and was told that there would be a three-month wait for an out-patient appointment. When at the end of the three months he inquired when he would be seen, he was told that it would take a further 12 months. About 10 days agoa week before he came to see mehe was told that he would have to wait a further 14 months. That is a total wait of almost 20 months for a straightforward out-patient appointment.
	The outcome of the Government's current policies is that the problems in a county such as Oxfordshire, where long out-patient performance is a shocking 75 per cent. away from target, will simply get worse. Oxfordshire health authority is now having to identify cuts of 7 million before it is abolished on 1 April next year. As a consequence, trolley waits will continue at a high and unacceptable level, as will cancellations of operations.
	There is a critical shortage of staff in the NHS in Oxfordshire: a recent count revealed that 377 of the 1,250 nursing posts were vacant. As my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Johnson), for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for Witney (Mr. Cameron)all sponsors of my Billcan testify, the people of Oxfordshire are becoming extremely frustrated and disillusioned by the continuing deterioration in the delivery of NHS services in their county. I suspect that trends in Oxfordshire are repeated in many other parts of the country, especially in the south-east.
	What the NHS needs is more nurses, more staff and more money. The Government's policies will simply exacerbate the difficulties of NHS trusts that are in trouble. It is not possible further to reduce spending on health services while expecting health authorities such as Oxfordshire's to implement what in NHS jargon are called PIP and PIP2patient improvement plans. How on earth is implementing such plans possible when one is cutting the budgets of local hospitals? Even if the John Radcliffe hospital and Horton hospital could recruit a full complement of nurses, they cannot now afford to do so because they could not afford to pay them. Their ability to do so will be eroded even further by Government-imposed additional cuts to their budgets.
	The Department of Health has instructed Oxfordshire health authority to implement cuts of 7 million in the financial year 2000-01. Those cuts are in addition to the cuts that the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust is expected to make in respect of the John Radcliffe hospital and Horton hospital, whose budgets have to be reduced by a further 4.5 million. Oxfordshire health authority's resource outlook for the coming year diplomatically observes that those cumulative cuts will entail a reduction in aspirations.
	There will be a substantial reduction in NHS services to my constituents and those of every Oxfordshire Member of Parliament, further exacerbated by the fact that Oxfordshire county council is simultaneously having to make substantial savings in its social services budgetsavings of so draconian a nature that only those in the most urgent need are now likely to receive social services support. I do not expect the problem of bed blocking to be resolved this winter.
	My Bill will ensure that when failings are found, there will be the necessary encouragement to ensure appropriate funding. That does not happen under the Commission for Health Improvement, nor under the Audit Commission. My Bill will introduce an independent NHS hospital inspectorate that will help to direct investment into hospitals that need assistance. That will be better for nurses, managers and patients.
	My Bill will also establish an inspectorate that can watch where NHS funding goes at a time when the Government are somewhat chaotically restructuring the NHS. The Government's rhetoric in their NHS plan is that NHS restructuring
	will develop partnership and co-operation
	but I suspect that the reality will be

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.

Evan Harris: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said about the state of the NHS in Oxfordshire, but I do not believe that the Bill would add to any inspection regimes that might exist to measure sensible outcomes. Indeed, it appears to focus on measures that are not sensible. I put it to the House that it is no good measuring silly things better. Mechanisms already exist for measuring the sensible thingshealth outcomesthat need to be measured.
	It must be understood that the Government strategy for escaping responsibility for poor performance in the national health service is to shift the blame. They are doing that, first, through continuous structural change, to appear to be busy while making matters worse. Secondly, they insist on creating changes in working patterns, labelled modernisation, which does not appear to have any influence on improved patient care, then criticise people who oppose that change because it is change for change's sake. The third prong of their strategy is to name and shame, which they do through league tables.
	The creation of yet another inspectorate on top of those that already exist gives more weight to the idea that the problem of investment, staffing and morale is not the Government's failure, but a failure of some hospitals involving poor management or poor clinical care, and plays into the Government's hands. Current problems, including waiting lists, waiting times and clinical cleanliness, which appear in the motion moved by the hon. Gentleman, are not sensible measures of outcomes. Many of the outcome targets that the Government measured for their league tables were wholly dependent on trusts' ability to staff their hospitals, which involves the availability of clinical staff, as the hon. Gentleman said, the level of Government resources and, of course, trusts' ability to fiddle the figures.
	Creating another inspectorate to measure how much the figures are fiddled does not do anything to improve patient care. Indeed, yet another inspectorate will simply play the Government's game of scapegoating. Waiting lists are merely a measure of activity; the more operations that are available on the health service, the greater the number of people waiting. The critical factor is average waiting time, not how many people are waiting. The continuing focus on waiting list numbers has distorted clinical priorities and has often led to people waiting longer. Rigid Government waiting-time targets create distortions themselves, as people are brought in to meet the 18-month, 15-month and 12-monthapparently soon to be six-monthlimit at the expense of critically ill people who should be treated within 18 days or 18 hours. That is happening at the John Radcliffe and many other hospitals. Focusing on such measures through the proposed inspectorate or other inspectorates does not help.
	Another flaw in the proposal is the suggestion that an inspectorate can sensibly measure hospital efficiency without taking effectiveness into account. Hospitals can be hugely efficient when they are 100 per cent. full, but they are not effective if they cannot admit anyone. If, by clinical cleanliness the hon. Gentleman means cross-infection rates, those should already be being measured by good clinical practiceclinical audit and clinical governance. If the Government focused on sensible outcome measures, I would be more prepared to welcome the measures that they have introduced through, for example, the Commission for Health Improvement, the continuing work of the Audit Commission, clinical governance and clinical audit, which ensure that those measures are accurately presented and publicised.
	The Government have an incentive, not to look at real outcomes, which are getting worse, but to create league tables. If we ever focus on sensible outcome measures, mechanisms for assessing them already exist. To a certain extent, the quality agenda has been met by those measures; clinical revalidation of doctors and, I hope, other health professionals is assessed in a way that yet another inspectorate will not match. If anything, morale in hospitals is suffering because clinical staff, who are working hard, face a profusion of inspections. At the John Radcliffe, morale is already at rock bottom from the Government's scapegoating and the naming and shaming exercise of league tables; that is without the threat of yet another inspection, which will simply show that the hospital does not have the resources or staff.
	I was delighted that the hon. Gentleman called for more nurses, beds and funding, as we have not heard that from his party before. However, we also need no more inspectorates and no more false measures.
	I urge hon. Members to reject the Bill. Although we currently measure the wrong things badly, it will not help to measure the wrong things better.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Baldry, Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Cameron, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Boris Johnson and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

Hospital Inspectorate

Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to establish an independent inspectorate of hospitals to provide independent inspection of waiting lists, waiting times, hospital efficiency and clinical cleanliness: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed [Bill 45].

Orders of the Day
	  
	International Development Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Clare Short: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The purpose of the Bill is legislatively to entrench poverty reduction as the overriding aim of United Kingdom development assistance and to ensure that with two exceptions, which I shall come to, money for development assistance is spent for that reason alone.
	As hon. Members know, the reduction of poverty has been the guiding principle of all our development efforts since 1997. That central objective and the clarity of focus that it brings have been widely supported in debates on the Bill in the House and in the other place, and by the International Development Committee and the public.
	Under existing legislation, the Secretary of State could change that policy without reference to Parliament. She has an undesirable amount of flexibility in using development assistance resources, and a future Secretary of State could, for instance, reinstate a policy of tying aid, thus distorting its use and decreasing its efficiency, or use the aid budget to pursue other short-term political or commercial ends.
	Clearly, any future Government have the right to change policy, but given the growth in our budget and in parliamentary and public support for our poverty reduction focus, I believe that any future Government should be required to seek Parliament's approval for a shift away from poverty reduction as our central policy objective.
	We should continually remind ourselves that one in five of the 6 billion people who share the planet still live in abject poverty. With the abundance and knowledge that exist in the world, it shames and disgraces us that such poverty and inequality continue. Although that is perhaps the most important moral issue of our time, it is also a practical issue which engages our interests. If, in our increasingly globalised world, we fail to deal with such division and inequality, we can expect even more instability and environmental degradation, which will endanger our future and that of subsequent generations.
	Since 1997, the United Kingdom has led the international effort to place the systematic reduction of poverty at the core of the whole international development effort. We have not only focused our bilateral programme on poverty reduction, but worked throughout the international system to achieve a global commitment to focus it on the systematic reduction of poverty in every developing country.
	There has been much progress. All the main players in the international development community, including the World Bank, most multilateral development banks, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the G7, have agreed that the international development targets, which are now incorporated in the millennium development goals, should be the central objective of the collaborative international development effort. Those goals were reaffirmed at the UN's millennium assembly.
	We firmly believe that an international development system dedicated to those goals can greatly improve current performance and that the targets are achievable if we focus our efforts and improve our effectiveness. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has received my letter, but the world is already on track to meet the goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015. That will enable 1 billion people to lift themselves out of extreme poverty.
	The World Bank projects that, on present trends, the proportion of the population of developing countries living on less than $1 a dayI should stress that that is less than the equivalent of what a dollar a day buys in the US; in other words, it is a tiny incomewill fall to 12.3 per cent. in 2015, compared with 29 per cent. in 1990. That will be a considerable achievement, but it depends on a continuing commitment to reform focused on poverty reduction led by the developing countries themselves and supported by the international community, and we must be clear that it will still leave millions in abject poverty.

Martin Smyth: As I understand the briefing that I have received, $1 a day was an income target at an earlier stage and there was no significant change in the number of people living on that income over the 20 years following the start of that development programme in 1960. How can the Secretary of State be confident that that situation can be so dramatically improved today when the proportion of those in povertyliving on less than $1 a daywas similar in the 1980s to that in the 1960s? We must also bear it in mind that $1 a day purchased more in the 1960s than it does today.

Clare Short: In the past 30 years, there has been great progress in poverty reduction across the world and more human beings have made the journey out of extreme poverty to a better life in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years of human history, but world population has grown massively, from 1 billion in 1960 to 3 billion in 1990 and 6 billion now, and we are moving towards 9 billion.
	Although we have made progress, there has also been massive population growth. That is partly because we have made progress: people live longer and children survive, so there are more human beings living in extreme poverty. There is a paradoxwe have made great progress, but there is more human suffering. From our progress, we can learn how to scale up our efforts and take them to more people. The only way to reduce human suffering and to stabilise world population is to improve people's lives and give them a chance to get their children, particularly the girls, educated.
	The measure relating to $1 a day was worked out on purchasing power parity in 1988I am speaking from memoryso that one could compare, country by country, what people bought with the equivalent of $1 in their country with what could be bought for $1 in the US. It is a tiny amount, but that information is updated by comparative studies made across the world.
	In 1990, we set the target of halving by 2015 the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, and we are on track to achieve that. By then, 1 billion people will have made that great journey, but millions will still be living in abject poverty. We shall not have finished the task by 2015, but we will have shown that we can pull the whole international system together to improve its performance and that we have in our hands the capacity to work systematically towards the elimination of abject poverty from the human condition. That is what we are trying to achieve with our current efforts.
	To achieve this aim, we need to improve the way in which international development assistance is provided. Old-fashioned aid is provided by funding large numbers of well intentioned but disconnected projects, which leave little sustainable impact, and which, through the accounting and evaluation requirements of large numbers of individual donors, use up the capacity of frail administrative systems to improve the quality and effectiveness of their own administration.
	Clearly, that old-fashioned system was well intentionedit took some money, set up charitable projects and brought relief to the suffering poorbut when the money runs out, the projects collapse and there is no sustainable improvement in the effectiveness of Government services in the countries that receive such assistance.
	We are working with others to focus the international approach to development assistance on backing up poverty reduction strategies drawn up by the Governments of developing countries in full consultation with their people. Those strategies seek to combine macro-economic and social policy objectives to ensure that resources from tax revenues, debt relief and aid funds can all be directed towards a much stronger effort to improve services and economic management. When the economy grows, revenue levels rise and better sustainable services can be provided by those countries' own government systems to supply education and health care for everyone.
	Such refocusing will require international development efforts to have systematic poverty reduction as their objective, as enshrined in the Bill. That is a big shift in the use and effectiveness of development assistance, which we are trying to drive through the international system to increase our achievements.
	As everyone knows, the House has approved a reversal in the decline of the UK development budget that occurred during the 1980s and much of the 1990s. Since 1997, the UK effort has increased from 0.26 per cent. of gross national product to 0.33 per cent., and my budget has increased from 2.2 billion to 3.6 billion. That increase has been provided on the basis that the resources will be spent on poverty reduction. It is right, therefore, that the legislation that underpins spending that money should entrench the requirement that those funds be used to contribute to poverty reduction, not on other objectives.

Tony Baldry: It is a welcome fact that UK development aid is increasing. For the first time in 40 years, our development aid budget is larger than that of France, but, in percentage terms, the United States still has a tiny aid budget0.1 per cent. What can we do collectively to persuade the United States that it is in its interest and that of the international community to engage further in development aid?

Clare Short: That is a very important point. There is $55 billion in the international development system, and we need that money to invest in giving Governments the capacity to run their economies and social sectors better so that they can grow their economies and liberate their people. Although this country is raising its aid budget to 3.6 billion, we spend 100 billion on our social security system, so increasing those resources should not be difficult for us. The US has the lowest aid budget of any OECD country.
	Two steps can be taken. First, we should show that we are using aid more effectively. Many people stopped believing in aid when it was used to prop up corrupt regimes; that undermined commitment. If we can show that aid is being used effectivelythat poverty is systematically being reduced and that more children are in schoolwe can re-engage the public in believing.
	Secondly, the other side of the coin as regards what happened in the US is the hope that something good comes out of the bad of 11 September. The mood of the United States was turning inwards, but there is now a growing understanding that the only way to make any country safe is to make the world more equitable and safe. That means reaching out to the poorest countries and giving them the capacity to offer hope for their people, rather than the hopelessness that sometimes inspires people to join ugly movements. Hopelessness is never an excuse, but it is a breeding ground.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury that this matter is a priority. We hope that we can get the international community to concentrate on international development, because that is right and because it is the only way to make the world safe. If we all work together, we may be able to make progress.

Edward Leigh: On the subject of priorities, the Bill focuses on the eradication of poverty. When the right hon. Lady decides which countries are granted aid and how much, to what extent is she motivated by their human rights record, particularly as regards the persecution of religious and other minorities?

Clare Short: We must first realise that the UK's direct bilateral budget, which is about half our effort, is part of an international system. Rather than trying to make our budget perfect, we must make the whole system work internationally so that historical patterns are complemented by others. So long as we ensure that everyone is adequately provided for, that makes sense. However, all the research shows that the most effective way to use aid is to focus it on reformers and where there are large numbers of poor people. Then, penny for penny or dollar for dollar, it is more effective in driving up standards and reducing poverty.
	On respect for human rights and minorities, which the hon. Gentleman asked about, when one looks across the world one sees that minorities tend to be the poorest. Therefore, focusing on the poor and giving them a better chance necessarily focuses on the needs of minorities, whether in Vietnam, China, India, parts of Africa or elsewhere.
	So a focus on poverty automatically leads one to a focus on minorities.
	The universal declaration of human rights specifically mentions political, civil, social and economic rights. It establishes, for example, every child's right to an education. Although the declaration was written in 1948, it also states that primary education should be free. If we focus on human rights, we must focus not only on people's right to speak, to be free from political persecution and to practise their religion, but, for example, on their children's right to go to school.
	The truly difficult question, which I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has asked me before, is what to do in the most badly governed countries, where some of the poorest and most depressed people live. We cannot provide resources to their Governments because they would be mis-spent. We are working, therefore, not only to improve our ways of getting humanitarian relief to people but to strengthen people's capacity to demand change. That is difficult, but we have to do it; otherwise, we shall simply be turning our backs on the poorest and most needy countries and people. That would not do either.

Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that respect for human rights depends on how well educated a population is, and that that depends on the relief of poverty in the first place?

Clare Short: I recommend that hon. Members who have not recently read the universal declaration of human rights re-read that document. It is the most wonderful piece of work, in both its writing and its conception. It tries to encapsulate all the basic rights that every human being needs to enjoy to have the dignity of humanity. Those rights include, for example, the right to speak, to practise one's religion, to be consulted on politics, to have respect for one's culture, to see one's children educated and to receive health care. People have the right not to be oppressed and a positive right to the things that enable the enjoyment of a decent life.
	The universal declaration imposes on everyone in the international system a duty to try to achieve those rights for all people as rapidly as possible. The duty is placed first on each country's Government, and a further duty is placed on us all to seek a form of world governance that maximises the chances of all those rights being realised by all people.
	I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that education is the key factor in creating conditions in all countries that enable everyone to celebrate all those rights. Progress is always possible. If we are to make social and economic progress and to have a decent world, we should all be seeking to respect the rights of every human being, especially those of the poorest, the minorities and the marginalised.

Jim Knight: The events of 11 September have been mentioned. I have read that the World Bank's assessment is that the attacks are likely to have an adverse effect on economic growth in developing countries both this year and next, which will increase by 10 million the number of people living in poverty in the countries that my right hon. Friend mentioned. Does she agree with that assessment? If so, how will that affect the goal of reducing international poverty?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is rightthe World Bank has assessed the likely effects, and the statistics that he quoted are correct. Before 11 September, the world was heading into recession, and the world's two largest economiesthose of Japan, which has long been doing poorly, and the United Stateswere experiencing a downturn. The danger is that the shock and the shaken confidence caused by 11 September will deepen that downturn. Although it will affect every country, the poorest countries can least afford to deal with it and with the resulting hurt.
	That assessment is right. We must now try to create an upturn in the world economyone that is equitableand restore confidence. The successful launch this weekend of the Doha trade round would help that. An upturn in the economies of Europe and north America would help not only the people of those countries but the people of the developing world.
	The world has, of course, changed. We used to talk about our own country's economy as though we could control it as a political issue. Now, not even the United Kingdom, let alone a poor country, can look after its own economy. Increasingly, we have the responsibility to try to manage the world economy in a manner that brings benefits to all, especially to the poor. Although we are experiencing a downturn, we must work to turn it round as rapidly as possible.
	The current relevant legislation is the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980a consolidating Act that draws its provisions from 33 statutes. Much of it is outdated or obsolete. New legislation is required to update it to entrench the objective of poverty reduction, to provide new powers to support the building of civil society and a commitment to development in the poorest countries and in our own country, and to help the private sector in developing countries to build an economy that will grow and give people the chance of a better life and better public services.
	The House will recall that, in the Pergau dam judgment, the courts found that the powers in the existing legislation were so widely drawn thatin the court's rather polite wordsthey caused the Minister to mislead himself into believing that he could use aid money to support economically unsound projects. Some political imperatives were connected to that misjudgment, which the courts held to be illegal. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that we must ensure that that does not recur in any future Administration. We must also ensure that a future Administration do not reintroduce a policy of tying aid without having to change the law to do so.
	The purpose of the work that we undertakethe reduction of povertywill be enshrined in the Bill, which will not allow priority to be given to commercial or political interests. Of course, all Governments have legitimate commercial and political interests, but the aid budget should not be misused to serve them; the aid budget exists for another purpose. Development assistance should be focused on the reduction of poverty. Short-term considerations that do not contribute to a reduction in poverty are not permitted by the Bill. I am sure that the House will agree that that is a good discipline and that it should be imposed on all holders of my office.

Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State knows that not only do I generally agree with her on these issues, but I generally support the Bill. I should like to take her back to the difficult issue of poverty reduction, which is so critical. Is it not often the governance of many third-world, developing countries that leads to poverty? How much more can we do in our policy or in the Bill to stop poor governance and the Government corruption that lead to the poverty that we seek to alleviate by sending money?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right that, in the modern world, poor governance is increasingly a block on the economic growth and improvement in social provision that enable economies to grow and improve people's lives. That fact is truer now than ever before because of the increased availability of international investment and foreign direct investment. Such investment will go only where corruption is not rampant and where there is peace and proper enforcement of commercial contracts. Although poor governance was always undesirable, now it is an absolute block to economic development.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, more of the Department's efforts are being devoted to trying to improve the effectiveness of government. The quality of the management of the public finances is absolutely key. Better, more transparent management of public finances ensures that the available money is better used, and good systems ensure that corruption does not occur, although it may be a temptation.
	We should all remind ourselves of one fact. In Ethiopia, for example, GDP per capita is $100 and 62 per cent., I think, of children who survive to five are chronically malnourished. It is very difficult to be a good Government in an extremely poor country, but Governments must strive to achieve that. We must all maintain the pressure, and we must all support and build better systems. Although efforts to provide for everyone and to maintain a democratic ethos must continue, it is difficult to do so in poor countries. We should therefore have some humility when considering these issues. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman was correct on his fundamental point: good governance is the key to economic growth and the provision of better services, which in turn enable people to improve their lives and make the reduction of poverty possible.
	The House should be clearsometimes there is muddle in the debatethat the overriding objective of poverty reduction does not mean that development efforts are restricted to the provision of social assistance or charitable handouts. The White Paper, Making Globalisation Work for the Poor, sets out clearly the conditions needed to reduce poverty in developing countries. They include economic growth that brings benefits to all, not merely to a small elite, and the provision of appropriate quality Government services. So often in the past when we have said that the focus is on poverty, people have thought only of social policy. Securing a good macro-economic policy and a thriving private sector, however, is all part of bringing about enough economic growth to reduce poverty systematically.
	To achieve such conditions, Governments need to be able to run effective states. They need, for examplethis is the point that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mrs Robathan) was makingthe capacity to manage their public finances well, and to raise revenues properly and fairly. They also need effective regulatory systems to provide the framework for a thriving private sector that can attract both domestic and foreign investment.
	One of the tragedies of Africa, for example, is that 40 per cent. of domestic savings leave the continent. If it is not possible to bring about conditions in which domestic savings stay at home, it will not be possible to bring about the conditions that attract foreign direct investments. All those are key considerations.
	The creation of a properly accountable security sector is crucial to the stability and security that are needed for economic growth and poverty reduction. We need police who enforce the law, and courts that enforce contracts and the like without being corrupt. Armed forces that are over-large or not democratically accountable often lead to instability, mis-spending and even military coups, and thus to the diversion of resources. Equally, the existence of a free and effective press is important to secure the democratic accountability that is necessary for the functioning of a successful modern state.
	The Bill will allow support in all those areas to continue, as long as such assistance is designed to contribute to the reduction of poverty. We are, for instance, engaging more in security sector reform. We want proper accountability for the armed forces, and more effective and law-abiding policing. Such conditions are also key to the reduction of poverty: the fact that the Bill identifies that as our objective does not mean that we cannot engage in all the other complex areas of policy. The Bill does not in any way restrict the sectors in which we work, but it requires the purpose of our effort to be to generate institutions and policies that will lead to the systematic reduction of poverty. That is the test.
	As I said earlier, there are two exceptions to the Bill's overriding requirement that poverty reduction must be the purpose of international development assistance expenditure. The first concerns assistance given to the overseas territories. The Government's responsibility for those territories goes beyond a commitment to help them to reduce poverty, although of course any assistance that we provide should include that objective. The requirement that assistance to the overseas territories must be likely to contribute to a reduction of poverty is therefore replaced by a requirement that our assistance must be provided for the purpose of furthering sustainable development or improving the welfare of their population. It will allow the Government to go on providing the territories with all types of support, such as direct budgetary support or support for the construction of infrastructure when those meet reasonable needs.
	The second exception relates to assistance provided in response to disasters or emergencies. That is because such assistance will not in all cases be likely to contribute to a reduction of poverty. Disasters, for example, do not always occur in the poorest parts of countries, or in the poorest countries. If the requirement to provide humanitarian assistance always had to serve the objective of poverty reduction, our ability to move rapidly whenever people were in trouble would be restricted. The United Kingdom has a very good record for speed and flexibility in its responses to humanitarian crises, and that capacity should not be put at risk.
	The Bill also broadens the Secretary of State's powers to achieve the narrower poverty reduction focus. It provides a firmer legislative basis for the support of work that improves development awareness and advocacy. That includes what is done in our own country. I am pleased to note a growing cross-party consensus in the House that this is an imperative for the country, and that we should unite behind it. I think that the public care about these matters too, but need to be more informed about the way in which the reforms of trade rules and other arrangements can ensure that we make progress.
	The United Kingdom could make an important contribution on the world stage in this regard, because of the kind of country we are. That is why we have increased our funding for development awareness in the UK: we want to secure that informed and deeply committed public support. Similarly, we want to help people in badly governed developing countries to understand their right to use democracy to demand better governance for themselves. We want to fund that kind of awareness among the poor, not just the provision of social services.
	Under the existing law, we have had to fund such work under the annual Appropriation Acts rather than by means of mainstream legislation. We have been strengthening our work since 1997, but only with funds committed under those Acts. Henceforth, if the Bill is passed, it will be possible to fund it under the new powers that it conveys.
	The second area in which the Bill extends existing powers is that of support for the private sector. Under current legislation, our powers are restricted to the provision of grants and loans, which are not always the best way in which to help enterprises become commercially viable.
	The firm that makes Divine chocolate, for example, is a not-for-profit company involving Ghanaian cocoa producers and some of our non-governmental organisations. It wanted a guarantee from us, so that it could obtain a loan from the National Westminster bank to enable it to get its enterprise moving. We have no powers to give guarantees; we can only give grants. A grant, however, can undermine the discipline of a commercial purpose. We had to get special permission from the Treasury to give a guarantee. We are therefore taking the power to make such provision ourselves.
	Similarly, micro-finance should not be funded only by overseas development assistance. We should be securing banking across the world to provide poor people with credit through mainstream commercial agencies, and we are doing more to encourage that. We need the capacity to widen the opportunities available to us, such as the taking of shares or the provision of convertible loans, options and guarantees. The Bill will enable us to support far more effectively the building of private sector capacity capable of contributing to the reduction of poverty.

Robert Walter: In earlier times, we might have considered some of the tasks the Secretary of State has described to be the responsibility of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Does she see any future role for the CDC, or can we now write it off as a private sector bank?

Clare Short: Not at all. Legislation was introduced in the last Parliamentand, I think, supported by Members on both sides of the Houseto build on the CDC, but to try to use it as an instrument to secure more private sector investment in the poorest countries, where the private sector currently tends not to invest. The aim was to use expertise and commitment to developing countries to draw in such investment, and to parallel the public sector investment that was already there. The CDC is undergoing a restructuring with the aim of achieving that objective. The current climate does not make the restructuring easy, but we are making progress. Indeed, I had a meeting about it this morning.
	We are talking about big, long-term investment, however. The CDC is trying to move more in the direction of equities. The objective is to strengthen, for instance, share-management capacity in developing countries, but to use the 1 billion of public sector investment to attract private sector money to countries that do not currently receive it, and show the private sector that a reasonable return can be obtained.
	That is an important tool. It is not controlled by the Billearlier legislation has governed the restructuringbut it is part of the UK's commitment to our development effort.

Jenny Tonge: Can the Secretary of State assure us that the restructuring of the CDC has not caused the poorest countries to miss out on investment?

Clare Short: I can give that assurance to the hon. LadyI nearly said my hon. Friend. I do not know whether that would have offended her.

Nick Hawkins: What a giveaway.

Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman may learn, it is possible to be fond of people across the Floor.
	There has been some misleading writing, particularly in The Economistnot my favourite publicationsuggesting that some of the restructuring is moving away from the poorest. The argument goes like this: in the poorest countries it is possible to obtain only a low rate of return, so the CDC should stay in old-fashioned agricultural investments with a very low rate of return, or it will turn against the poor. If that is trueand I do not believe that it isit leads to despair. It means that the poorest countries will never be able to attract private sector investment providing the return that the private sector needs. I am thinking of pension funds and so on.
	Often, agricultural investments with a fairly low rate of return are sold on to local people; they do not cease to exist. The CDC, however, is trying to become involved in more added value and equity to show that the private sector can go to the poorer countries. I assure the hon. Lady that we are still determined to use that instrument to secure more investment in poor developing countries: that is the purpose of the exercise, and there will be no diversion from it. Hon. Members must not believe everything that they read in The Economist.

Dennis Turner: My right hon. Friend mentioned Divine chocolate and I wish to remind hon. Members that it is available in the House of Commons. It is a wonderful chocolate and if hon. Members would like to buy some for Christmas, they would be assisting the cause in a positive way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had not realised that this was a commercial channel.

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as well as being the best Parliamentary Private Secretary in the House, is also Chair of the Catering Committee. He has ensured that many fair trade products are available here, and that has been supported by hon. Members on both sides. I am sure that we are all proud of that chocolate and want to consume more of it, even though we have to watch our waistlines.
	In the course of discussion of the Bill in Parliament and elsewhere, several proposals have been made for emphasising particular sectors or issues, such as a commitment to children, empowering women, or ensuring good governance. We have resisted all those pressures and will continue to do so. That does not mean that we reject the importance of the issues. Far from it; we agree that children are not only vulnerable but the key to future development, and that we must ensure that this generation of poor children has the opportunity of education and health care denied to its parents in order to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. We recognise that, as Kofi Annan put it, poverty has a woman's face. Some 70 per cent. of the world's poor are womenand poor children often come from female-headed householdsand securing girls' literacy is one of the most effective ways to combat poverty. We also agree that failings of governance, as I said earlier, are one of the major causes of poverty and wasted resources.
	We still believe, however, that any attempt to entrench specific reference to the importance of those issues in legislation would weaken the capacity of my Department and impair our adaptability and flexibility. The flexibility of our current arrangements makes my Department one of the most effective and respected development organisations in the world, and the country is entitled to be proud of the Department. That was underlined just last month by the OECD's development assistance committee's peer review of our programme. The needs and performance of countries and regions vary, and we must be able to deploy our resources where they can best meet those needs and complement what other development partners are doing. Using legislation to tie down proportions of our budget, however well intentioned, would impair our flexibility and effectiveness. USAID has had that problem, because Congress has decreed that so much should be spent on this, so much on that and so much on something else. It is done with good intentions, but it leads to a lack of flexibility with every organisation having to ensure that its budget meets those proportions.
	During the Bill's passage through the other place, some very misleading claims were made about the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the IPPF. In case that confusion extends to this House, I should make it clear that UNFPA is the largest UN provider of sexual and reproductive health assistance to developing countries. It works in poor countries across the globe. The fund provides support to enable millions of women in developing countries to go through pregnancy and childbirth more safelymaternal mortality still causes enormous loss of women's lives, which throws families into poverty and is one of the big differences between developing and developed countriesand to improve neonatal survival. It is also playing a leading role in efforts to prevent the further spread of HIV-AIDS by increasing the supply of condoms across the world. UNFPA has helped to ensure that women in the most difficult of situations are not forgotten and get the services that they need.
	The IPPF also provides much-needed family planning and sexual and reproductive health services through its family planning associations in many poor countries across the world. The reality is that without those associations, many women would have no choice in matters of their own sexual and reproductive health.
	Both organisations do fine work that we support, and we should all honour what they do. However, despite the valuable and essential work of the organisations, there are those who would prefer that they did not exist, or that the Government did not support their work. Those critics' favoured route for attacking both organisations is to make false allegations about their programmes in China. The critics accuse UNFPA and the IPPF, and by extension the British Governmentit is a cross-party accusation, because it was made when the Conservatives were in power, tooof supporting coercive family planning practices. Let me reassure the House, yet again, that those allegations are without foundation. Obviously, coercive fertility control is practised in China. We condemn such practices unequivocally. But those are the reasons why the work of UNFPA and the IPPF in China is so important. UNFPA's programme in China is designed to demonstrate that people can be provided with modern services and make their own choices about family size without coercion. That is the point.
	The reality is that the work of UNFPA and the IPPF has led to real advances. A service in which women and men are provided with information and choice in their sexual and reproductive care is now being developed in 860 counties, which is about one third of the total number of counties in China. In 1995, only five counties were piloting that approach. Birth quotas have been dropped in all the counties where UNFPA is working. It is unlikely that those changes would have happened without the influence and work of UNFPA and it is vital that we continue to support its important work.
	In conclusion, I remind the House that 6 billion people share this planet, of whom one in five are still living in extreme poverty with shortened lives, poor nourishment, lack of education and health care, and lack of access to clean water and sanitation. Some 10 million children die each year from malnourishment and preventable illness. Some 500,000 women die during childbirth for lack of simple medical interventions. Some 800 million people cannot read or write and 113 million children do not have access to primary education. That is the biggest moral challenge facing the world and that level of poverty and division endangers the future security of all our countries.
	The Government have been working to focus the international community on a commitment to greater equity and justice across the world. We have made gains. We are on track to help 1 billion people make their way out of extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015, but that is not enough. World population growth by 2020 to 2030 will leave another 1 billion or more in poverty. On present rates of progress, we will not have all children in school, or access to health care for all people, by 2015. Much faster progress is possible. The purpose of the Bill is to require that UK development efforts must be focused on the mobilisation of a strong international commitment to the systematic reduction of poverty. That is an area in which the UK can make an important contribution to international justice and security. I strongly commend the Bill. As I said on the occasion of its predecessor's Second Reading, its purpose is simple, but profoundly important.

Caroline Spelman: The events of 11 September have had a dramatic effect on the salience of international development, driving it up the international agenda. I wish to pay tribute to the work of the Secretary of State and her Department in keeping it high on the agenda. Since the House debated the earlier Bill, we are all much more aware of the need to redouble our efforts to close the gap between rich and poor nations. It is, as my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, a common goal. My purpose today is to build on his good work and to help us towards our common objective.
	Britain has a strong record as a major donor of aid to the developing world. We take our international responsibilities seriously, and that has never been more apparent than in the present crisis. We bestride three spheres of influence, with our Commonwealth, as a member of the European Union, and with our special relationship with America. What we say today about the purpose of development aid sends an important signal to the wider world. Ours is one of the world's leading industrialised nations, so the percentage of gross domestic product that we are prepared to spend has a major impact. Both main political parties are committed to reaching the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent. of GDP on development aid, but the problem with raw percentages is that they take no account of the state of the economy. If an economy goes into recession, the percentage devoted to development aid may rise, even if the amount of cash falls. Those raw percentages often disguise a patchy picture of development aid provision around the world.
	The Bill offers a rare opportunity to debate the fundamental objectives of our international development programme. Millions of pounds are spent in the poorest countries of the world every year, and it is right to debate what that money is spent on and what we want to achieve. However, debates on international development should be about more than the amount that we spend, although that is important. They should also focus on what we should be doing. If we know our overall objectives, we are better able to target our spending and assess its results.
	A clear sense of our objectives will be vital at the Doha conference on international trade. Britain's voice will be listened to closely, as we are a trading nation. Again, both major political parties argue that globalisation can be a force for good in the developing world, as it opens up markets and opportunities for developing countries to expand their economies through greater trade with the economies in the developed world.
	Even so, we must be wary of initiatives that have not been thought through properly. The everything but arms initiative sounded good, but more work needs to be done on its practical consequences for producers in developing countries and here. That is especially important in relation to sugar. Failure to understand the markets for international commodities and the interaction between developed and developing nations could mean that an initiative that sounds good could leave poorer countries worse off.
	We welcome the statement that progress must be made on agricultural reform. We urge the Government to press their counterparts in Europe not to hold up the trade talks on that point.
	There is a constant tension between the temptation of protectionism and the opportunities of free trade. We should take the lead in getting the matter right, simply because that is the right thing to do. In financial terms, opening up our markets and helping the developing world to achieve sustained economic growth through globalisation dwarfs all that the developed world offers in terms of direct aid and debt relief. However, that aid still adds up to vital relief. We must ensure that we spend our money in the right way. Critics sometimes uncharitably call that conscience money, but our aid in terms of debt relief is vital. I believe that it could be made still more effective, and we shall look for opportunities to achieve that with the Bill.
	Debt relief is not a once-and-for-all action. The underlying causes of debt accumulation must be tackled, and we should direct our attention to them if we want to stamp out the cycle of debt. I urge the Government not to fall into the trap of saying that debt relief is complete: instead, they must continually audit the state of indebtedness of the countries that we help. What about the countries that do not qualify under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative? We must be careful not to exclude or ignore other ways of helping them. Our focus should be on sustainable development to reduce their poverty .
	Unpayable debt is wrong because it restricts the ability of countries to move out of poverty. That brings us back to the core aim of the Bill. We agree that poverty reduction should be the central and foremost aim of the work of the Department for International Development. The Secretary of State referred earlier to the World Bank's view of progress in reducing the proportion of people living in poverty. No doubt that view was based on the world economic situation before 11 September. Is the World Bank's view that we are on target to meet the aim of reducing the number of countries in extreme poverty still true today?
	Poverty means that people have no choices in life. It can make them victims of their surroundings, not masters of it. Poverty leads to powerlessness. It cuts people off from education and lays them open to human rights abuses. Similarly, in developing countries, millions of poor people die from diseases that compromise their immune systems and lay them open to opportunist infections that would not be fatal here.
	The Bill will also need to stand the test of whether it will address the other problems that bedevil the developing world. Poverty reduction is the overarching aim, but will pursuit of that aim prevent proper attention being given to other key problems? For example, will poverty reduction give the Government better tools to tackle the appalling trade in young girls who are trafficked from places such as Ivory Coast to enter the European network of prostitution? Will it strengthen the Government's capacity to clamp down on illicit drug production? Will it stop the constant flow of arms that stokes battle in areas of conflict?
	None of those matters are addressed directly by the aim of poverty reduction, but they are the cause of very real misery in the developing world. If some of them are addressed by other Government Departments, what is there in the Bill to combine their work more effectively with that of the Department for International Development?
	I assure the House that any suggestions that we make with regard to the Bill are intended in an entirely constructive spirit. I am not in the business of opposition for its own sake. We want the aims of this Bill to be achieved, and any amendments that we try to make to it will merely be an attempt to make a good Bill work better. We have this rare opportunity to legislate on international development, and we must judge the proposed changes to the law against the test of whether they will make the delivery of aid more effective.
	That is why at all previous stages of the Bill in the last Parliament, and in another place, we pressed for the incorporation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery and corruption in UK law. The United Kingdom is one of the 34 signatory countries to that convention, but it is unique among developed countries for not implementing it.

Clare Short: The hon. Lady will know that the Queen's Speech contained a commitment to legislate to ensure that British law does not put implementation of the convention in doubt. I did not believe the early legal advice that stated that existing law would be sufficient in that regard. Will the Opposition give a commitment to support the legislation when it is brought forward? I accept that she may not be able to do so now, but such a commitment would mean that the legislation could be brought in much sooner.

Caroline Spelman: I thank the Secretary of State for that intervention, as it enables me to go on to say what I had intended to say in any case. The Opposition very much support the early introduction of the OECD convention, and there is no substitute for striking while the iron is hot. The introduction of that convention could be incorporated in this Bill. In my limited experience of Parliament, I know that it is better to have a bird in the hand than to wait for one in the bush. We therefore have no hesitation in pressing the Government to use the Bill as a vehicle for the introduction of the OECD convention.
	As a reinforcing argument, let us look at the comments of organisations criticising Britain's tardiness in introducing legislative enactment of the convention. I am sure that the Secretary of State will know that, in June this year, Lawrence Cockcroft, chairman of Transparency International, an organisation of anti-corruption activists, said:
	It is high time the UK stopped dragging its heels in the fight against international corruption and put an end to the current situation where we have no adequate legislation to make bribery abroad a criminal offence.
	I know that the right hon. Lady agrees that there is a need to act on the problem, as she told the Select Committee on International Development that the view of the OECD convention taken by the Government was damaging Britain's reputation. We can restore our reputation by using the Bill to implement the convention. That would be entirely consistent with the Bill's main aim, as I am convinced that it would lead to a reduction in poverty.
	When the Bill was going through the House at the end of the last Parliament we were told that the main reason for not incorporating the convention was lack of time, but now the general election is out of the way, timing should be less of a problem. The Select Committee on International Development found that corruption was the No. 1 factor that deterred companies from investing in developing countries.
	As the Government have ratified the convention, we should seize the opportunity to implement it by incorporating it in the Bill. Alternatively, with world events moving so unpredictably, and the need to introduce emergency legislation in response, perhaps we could use such legislation to implement the convention on bribery and corruption. Certainly we shall use the Committee stage as an opportunity to table an amendment that would make it possible for the Government to do that; I can give the right hon. Lady that undertaking.

Chris Ruane: Were there no opportunities for such legislation during the 18 years of Conservative rule?

Caroline Spelman: I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that the UK Government became a signatory to the UN convention on bribery and corruption during the Labour Administrationin 1998, if memory serves me correctlyso the opportunity to ratify it in law arose when his party was in government.

Clare Short: The House, and everyone else, should know that the convention requires all OECD countries, not just the UK, to make it a criminal offence to offer a bribe to a public official abroad as well as at home, and to cease to make bribery tax deductible. Is it not shocking that before the convention, in all the OECD countries all over the world, bribes offered abroad were tax deductible at home? That is what this is about. The convention is a breakthrough, and now we need to ensure that it is honoured in all countries.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has had it from both barrels, and I hope that he now has the clear impression that we strongly support the introduction of the convention to British lawsooner rather than later.
	For far too long, patterns of aid giving were subordinated to UK economic and political interests. The Bill seeks to end the phenomenon of tied aid. I place on record my party's support for that. We would not reintroduce the practice of tying aid to UK political, economic or diplomatic objectives. Aid spending should be primarily based on need. Tied aid does not serve the interests of the third world, and on those grounds we oppose it.
	Oxfam is concerned about the lack of specific detail in the Bill about aid untying, which receives no legal endorsement, although there was a commitment to it in the recent White Paper on globalisation. Some may think that tied aid is a thing of the past, and I hope that it is, but we can never be certain that future aid will not be tied too closely to a broader political agenda.

Simon Thomas: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Lady said about tied aid. I do not want to go over history, but looking to the future, is she aware that an International Monetary Fund report recently found about 186 examples of tied aid in only 23 aid development programmes? Tied aid is still going on internationally. Will she not only support its abolition in this Bill, but at the World Trade Organisation talks and in any future international discussions, give her party's support to the Government and all the agencies in getting rid of it?

Caroline Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I said earlier, this country is in the unique position of having at least three spheres of international influence, and we could use those to stress the importance of departing from the practice of tied aid.
	We may not have to look too far afield to see opportunities to encourage countries with which we are in partnership or some other relationship, and to urge this action upon them. Indeed, the European aid budget is often spent for political reasons. The International Development Committee's report on European aid says:
	The fundamental mistake has been to allocate excessive funds in the first place for predominantly political reasons.
	One glance at the pattern of aid giving by member states reveals a pattern that, not surprisingly, reflects the history and self-interest of the countries concerned.
	Trying to achieve agreement to give multilaterally proves much more difficult, however. Recently, multilateral giving through the European Union was heavily criticised by the European Court of Auditors as cumbersome and over-centralised. If we are asking the European Union to depoliticise, to speed up its aid delivery and to reduce waste on aid, we must be sure that we set a good example ourselves. The Bill will enable us to move positively in that direction.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend will recall that the Secretary of State reminded us that the world's poorest are often members of persecuted minorities. I entirely accept that, as my hon. Friend says, the traditional way of tying aid is wrong, but does she think that we should take cognisance of the human rights record of countries to which we are considering giving aid?

Caroline Spelman: While my hon. Friend was speaking, the conundrum of Burma came to mind. Its Government have an unacceptable human rights record, and we know that within it there are persecuted minorities in desperate need of humanitarian relief. That is the kind of acid test that I would like to address in Committee, to ensure that the drafting allows us to find a way to meet the real needs of the minorities in a country whose Government have a record of obstructing relief for those who need it. His intervention has drawn attention to an important test against which the Bill must be measured, and that is what we shall do in Committee.
	We are all concerned that the right schemes should get funding for the right reasons. As I have said, we endorse the aim of reducing poverty, but we are concerned that some projects that do not have poverty reduction as their first and foremost function may be adversely affected by the Bill. One way of ensuring that they continue to receive funding would be explicitly to mention good governance as contributing to poverty reduction. Schemes that work to reduce corruption or to support customs and excise functions would then be secure.
	We should seek a clearer definition of certain terms in the Bill, which relies heavily on the Secretary of State's interpretation of what would reduce poverty. I understand that that allows flexibility; she explained that that was the benefit. Ultimately, however, it is her interpretation that will decide where her Department can and cannot allocate spending. No doubt we shall be told that that will be set out in guidance to the Bill, but we rarely have sight of such guidance when we scrutinise legislation.
	The other term that might be worthy of definition is humanitarian. I remind hon. Members that one of the chief aims of the Bill is to ensure that aid is not used for political or diplomatic leverage. With humanitarian aid it is easier than with most other kinds of aid to misuse aid spending to serve a wider political agenda.
	Humanitarian aid, like other forms of aid, should help all who are in need, whatever their political or religious standpoint. It might be better if the Bill reflected that principle. We are concerned that, without a proper definition of humanitarian aid, some necessary help may be prevented.
	One example is the war aim of the coalition partners in the present crisis to reconstruct Afghanistanan aim that we wholeheartedly support. We do not know at what time reconstruction may be able to commence, although we have pushed hard for it, because it must happen if ordinary Afghans are to believe that our war is not with them. We need to think carefully about what form it should take. May I suggest to the Secretary of State that, cost and risk permitting, we might jointly visit Pakistan to make a better assessment of how British aid could be deployed in the rebuilding process? Given the destruction in Afghanistan, even before 11 September, it is likely that reconstruction will be a long process, going well beyond the immediate humanitarian crisis. It would be a pity if the process of reconstruction were curtailed prematurely because of the way in which humanitarian aid was interpreted.
	The principal reason why we support the Bill is that it will ensure that the Department for International Development's spending goes on worthy projects. It is the policy of both main parties that international development spending should increase to the UN guideline of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. It would be tragic if the funds that we have were wasted on projects that sustained poverty or did not focus on development.
	In another place, their Lordships raised the issue of overseas development aid being used to help regimes that perpetrate human rights abuses. The right hon. Lady referred to a certain amendment and its outcome in the other place. This is a difficult area, and I choose my words carefully when I reiterate what Baroness Rawlings said. Although we want women in developing countries to have access to the best possible help with family planning, we do not support a policy of coercive abortion and sterilisation.
	We must be careful that any change to the legislation that we might propose would not prevent much of the good work done by organisations such as the UN Population Fund, to which the right hon. Lady referred. No one, I am sure, would wish to see a suspension in the help to victims of HIV and AIDS, as they are provided with advice on their sexual health. It is significant, however, that the United States Congress Committee on International Relations is holding a series of public hearings on the subject. As far as I am aware, our International Development Committee has never held an inquiry on this. Might I suggest that we would be in a better position to judge what impact the Bill would have if a Special Standing Committee could briefly precede the Standing Committee and take evidence beforehand? That is not a ploy to delay the Bill's passage but simply a way of getting to the bottom of this important issue upon which, as far as I am aware, Parliament has not received direct evidence.
	I am glad to have the opportunity to debate international development and what we are spending our budget on. It is supremely important that we make the right choices in this matter. Important steps have been taken in the reduction of poverty. More people have been relieved from poverty in the past 50 years than in the previous 500. We support, without stinting, the aim of reducing poverty in the third world. We want a drastic reduction in crippling poverty as one of the defining features of the 21st century. To achieve that will require consistent and determined effort on the part of the Governments of the world. I hope that the Bill, once we have improved it in Committee, will help the UK Government to play their part in this most important process.

Tom Clarke: One thing among many that impressed me about the speech of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is that I think that she demonstrated that eight months is indeed a long time in politics. When her predecessor sat down after his contribution to the debate at our last attempt at introducing the Bill, I said that he was extremely mean-minded. Nobody would dare say that about the hon. Member for Meriden. She has been generous and constructive, particularly with regard to the OECD convention, and I look forward to progress in that respect.
	I welcome the Bill, as I did last time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put it before the House. It is about poverty reduction, which is pivotal to the aim of the United Kingdom development assistance programme. She touched on the huge challenges that exist. We see conflict, drought, famine, a growing population and the compelling issue of globalisation. I was pleased that that was addressed today not only at Prime Minister's Question Time, when my right hon. Friend made a plea for access to markets for developing countries, but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she spoke about the forthcoming conference in Doha. We wish the conference well in its considerations and her well when she makes her contribution.
	I believe that the House and the country alike will support as a matter of urgency the Government's determination not only to reduce poverty but to eradicate itconsistent with the title of the White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development produced towards the end of 2000. A Government who are determined to tackle social exclusion at home are all the more likely to fight poverty abroad and to be convincing as they approach that task. In my view, a Government who are set on reducing health inequalities for children in Coatbridge and Chryston are a Government who have the moral authority to improve the life chances of babies born in Karachi or Cambodia. I believe that that is central to the Bill.
	In June 2001, after our last attempt to introduce the Bill, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees published a report on refugee children in Africa. Its conclusions are chilling for the world's children. Poverty is at the heart of the problem. The report says:
	Countries of asylum where the proportion of refugee children exceeds 60 per cent include Angola (69%), Togo (64%), Guinea (63%), Burundi (62%), Rwanda (61%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (61%) and Sudan (60%).
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to the fore in seeking to challenge that picture.
	UNICEF produced a report with children at the heart of its thinking. I draw it to the attention of the House because it is relevant to the Bill. The report, entitled State of the World's Children 2002, outlines progress made during the 1990s towards goals set at the 1990 world summit for children. It says:
	a decade that had begun with promise had been marked by missed opportunities.
	It says specifically that over the decade the absolute number of malnourished children in sub-Saharan Africa actually increased. Between 1990 and 2000, the mortality rate for under-fives increased in 14 countries, nine of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Again in sub-Saharan Africa, only 47 per cent. of children are immunised against diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus. A woman in sub-Saharan Africa faces a one in 13 chance of dying during pregnancy and childbirth. Finally, the report said that AIDS
	is destroying families, communities and nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Women and girls are the fastest-growing group of new HIV infections. Sub-Saharan Africa is hardest hit. Here, life expectancy is plummeting.
	As we face that challenge, it is right that the reduction of poverty should be at the heart of our approach and that we should endorse measures to address what is happening in the developing world.
	The hon. Member for Meriden referred to Afghanistan. We haverightlyheld several debates on that country and, no doubt, our focus on Afghanistan will continue. However, even prior to the events of 11 Septemberindeed, on 4 Septemberthe UN produced a report, The Deepening Crisis, which drew our attention to what was happening in Afghanistan and what was of concern to Afghans at that time: the war that had gone on for more than 20 years; the refugee problem; and the inability to ensure that food was delivered to those who needed it. Although the difficulty has increased immeasurably since 11 September, it would have been important none the less for us to address the problems of Afghanistan tonight.
	One of the issues that has been raised in another placeI shall refer later to the discussions held thereis close to my heart, as many hon. Members know: disability. Baroness Wilkins drew attention to its importance during debates in the other place, and it is also important for us to consider what the issue means for us and what can be done. The World Bank estimated that about one fifth of the world's poorest people have disabilities. UNESCO studies tell us that only 1 to 2 per cent. of children with disabilities receive any education. With 300 million disabled people in developing countriesoften hidden awayit is not surprising that Howard White, the author of the 1999 Africa Poverty Status Report, concluded that disability was the hidden face of African poverty. He was right, and that point is also relevant in our debates on human rights.
	The Bill encourages us to discuss humanitarian aid. There is agreement on both sides of the House that aidlike debt reliefhas often helped the interests of the donor rather than those of the recipient. My right hon. Friend is anxious that her Bill should avoid that outcome.
	The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was correct in his intervention: by increasing the focus on international development, Parliament has done that cause a great service. Furthermore, Parliament has enabled us, without being patronising, to invite other European Union nations, and those members of the international community who are able to participate, to emulate what we are trying to do. It is important to them in respect of world peace and in bringing about the kind of world in which we assume that they, too, want to live.
	I welcome the provisions that allow the Secretary of State to give guarantees and acquire securities as well as to dispense grants and loans. I know that my right hon. Friend will continue constructively to question the EUas she has done in the pastabout how funding is made available, how it is spent and where the accountability that we all want comes into the picture.
	I also welcome the Bill's emphasis on development education. We all know of, and have particularly recognised during these recent unfortunate weeks, the tremendous role played by the aid agencies: Oxfam, Care International, CAFODthe Catholic Agency for Overseas Developmentand in Scotland, SCIAFthe Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. They, among others, are playing a vital role as non-governmental organisations are expected to doand indeed doto ensure that humanitarian aid is made available not to Governments for prestigious projects but to those who need it, thereby continuing that attack on poverty that we are all determined to pursue.
	I congratulate the Overseas Development Institute for its focus on these matters, especially its emphasis on empowermenta point mentioned by my right hon. Friendincluding empowerment for women in the developing world as well as elsewhere.
	My right hon. Friend clarified the issue of tied aid. I quote briefly from her intervention on my speech on Second Reading of the previous International Development Bill when she said:
	If tied aid is supplied, the goods or consultancies procured have to go back to the providing country. All the World Bank research shows that that creates a gross inefficiency and aid is reduced in value by 25 per cent. The Bill, which states that poverty reduction must be the target, will make it impossible to reintroduce tied aid. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have announced that we are getting rid of it completely.[Official Report, 6 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 187.]
	We very much welcome the progress made on that in April.
	I congratulate the Government, especially my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development, on their remarkable contribution on world debt, which lies at the heart of so many problems. The reform of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative is welcome and it is right that we should continue to review it. My right hon. Friends have pushed for 100 per cent. bilateral write-offs with considerable success.
	The goal that the Government have set for the reduction of world povertyhalving it by 2015mean that dealing with debt is crucial. Solving that problem is of the utmost importance and we look forward to even greater achievements in the months and years to come.
	Today and on other occasions, several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to previous debates on the Bill in another place. Lord Judd said that he wanted a more definite date for the achievement of the 0.7 per cent. of gross national product target. That is not in the Bill, nor would I have expected it to be, but perhaps the time has come to make a bit of a push on thatperhaps 10 years could be the target. There is something to be said for that and, in principle, I should welcome the setting of a definite target if the opportunity arose.
	In the same debate, Lord Hughes, with his immense knowledge of South Africa, made the point that there should be stronger support for the South African Government's medicines control Acta model of WTO-compliant but poverty-focused legislationto increase access to medicines for the poorest people, providing a balance to a purely commercially driven policy. There is something in that. South Africa is offering us as many lessons on dealing with such matters as it did on the achievement of democracy. The country has a colossal influence on development policy in the third world, including the rest of Africa.
	In the House of Lords debate, the strong view emerged that, to make certain that globalisation helps the poor and does not increase inequalities, Britain's development policiesespecially on Africawill sometimes have to take precedence over vested interests. I know that my right hon. Friend will push that view forcefully in whichever forums she is given the opportunity to speak. Some people are concerned about Angola. That problem must be addressed, notwithstanding the other problems in Africa.
	The growing concern about the environment was reflected again today during questions on the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That is something on which the House should continue to focus.
	I end with a question to my hon. Friend the Minister. I work closely with our friends the Kurds, and I wonder whether in view of the concern that 60,000 people will be affected by the Ilisu dam, he is in a position to give us some more information about it. That would help those of us who are worried about it.
	I wish the Bill well. It is practical. It is inspiring. It offers hope to developing countries. That is welcome because disenchantment has prevailed far too often in the past.

Jenny Tonge: Just after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, I made a speech to my party conference and reflected on the plight of the Afghan people, who were engulfed in 20 years of civil war and for three years had suffered drought and famine. It was at the same time that I talked about bombing Afghanistan with food. I was interested and relieved to see today that the World Food Programme is talking of airlifting food during the winter.
	Millions of people had been on the verge of starvation. The aid agencies warned of impending catastrophe for months, yet hardly anyone in the world was listening. In 1999-2000 the United Kingdom bilateral and multilateral aid to Afghanistan was less than 6 million. That was quite good by international standards. Between 1997 and 11 September this year, 32 million of humanitarian assistance went to Afghanistan, but that was mainly to the refugees already escaping to Pakistan and Iran.
	In my role as international development spokesman for my party, I am struck by one sad fact over and over again. International development issues catch the world's attention only when it is far too late; when the emergency occurs, it is too late. In the case of Afghanistan, we paid attention only after the horrific attack on the world's richest country on 11 September.
	Before I became a Member of Parliament I was a doctor, as many hon. Members know, and I always found that prevention was better than cure. Yet the health service still ploughs masses of money into heart surgery, brain surgery and incredible high-tech dramatic stuff, not into the unglamorous health promotion and prevention that would stop the diseases happening. How true that is, too, for international development. Prevention is the unglamorous bit; the treatment is the thing that catches the world's attention.
	We have a brilliant Department for International Development. I acknowledge that it is respected all over the world, and I have heard compliments paid to it all over the world. We have a Secretary of State who never pulls her punches, and even calls me friend on occasions, yet the United Nations target for spending on international development is 0.7 per cent. of GNP, as we all keep telling each other, and few countries have reached that target. We certainly have not. Attempts are being made, but we certainly have not got there. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, said that the United States of America of all countries could probably afford to increase substantially the proportion of GNP that it gives to development. The point was well made.
	Without a financial commitment wholeheartedly and generously funded before emergencies occur, the world can only hope to see more wars, more poverty, more famine, more refugees roaming the worldmost of them women and childrenand more asylum seekers struggling to escape to a better life. That is why the Bill is so important. It states clearly, although boringly at times, what we are aboutreducing poverty, furthering sustainable development and improving the welfare of people all over the world. That the other place could not pass the Bill in July amazes me, but then the antics of the Conservatives are a mystery to everyone, even the Conservatives.

Caroline Spelman: It had run out of time.

Jenny Tonge: Nevertheless, it could have gone through.
	The Secretary of State referred to the problem that the debate last week in the other place was almost entirely on coercive family planning in China. The general tenets of the Bill were not addressed. I disagree with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). We should not let wonderful international family planning and reproductive health programmes that are helping to fight AIDs, executed by the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes Internationalorganisations all dear to my heartbe hijacked by people who have a particular and very sincere religious conviction. That is the basis of the problem.
	I have some reservations about the Bill. I refer the House to the debate in March this year when the Bill had its first Second Reading for details of those. I was most concerned then about tied aid. The Pergau dam scandal sticks in all our minds and hearts, and we will never forget it. The then Under-Secretary of State for International Development was most helpful and organised a party of civil servants from the Department for International Development and the Treasury to meet me in private and apply the thumbscrews to make sure that I fully understood the Bill. I guess that they almost convinced me that the Bill was tied aid-proof, but just in case I asked a young woman lawyer of my acquaintance, Alison Griffithswatch that nameto approach the matter independently. She did not have a background in development. She did not listen to me first; neither did she listen to DFID or any of the debates. I quote her remarks for hon. Members' interest. She said:
	Following this legislation, any aid which was thought to be tied could be challenged through the courts as being contrary to the spirit of the statute and therefore contrary to the intention of Parliament when the Act was passed. The intention of Parliament would be determined through 'ministerial pronouncements' and records of debates.
	I therefore was able to rest my case. I thank everyone for the efforts that they have made to convince me, but I hope that when the Minister replies we will have one more ministerial pronouncement that tied aid will never appear again in this country.
	Will the Secretary of State tell us whether her Department has had to make any promises of aid to any of the countries of the coalition supporting the action in Afghanistan and, if so, where and how it could be covered by the Bill? I discount the offers of debt relief and humanitarian relief of course, but it is important to establish who is paying, especially for debt relief to Pakistan and humanitarian aid to refugees inside and outside Afghanistan. I hope that the money is not all coming out of the budget of DFID.

Clare Short: The hon. Lady is right to say that we were making commitments to Afghanistan, but they were not massive. We had difficulty spending our money in Afghanistan because UK nationals were targets; we were trying to build up our programme, but underspending. I have had an extra 15 million from the Treasury in addition to my normal budget. She always asks this question. It is good to be clear.
	We have made commitments to support Pakistan's continuing reform agenda, but that is not a reward for supporting the coalition. Since its formation as a state, Pakistan has been so misgoverned, plundered and corrupted. For example, it has never completed an International Monetary Fund-World Bank programme. A major reform effort of enormous importance to a very poor country is under way, and I have made commitments that are tied to that continuing reform effort. They are not a reward for the position taken on Afghanistan, but there is a danger that Pakistan could be destabilised by the crisis in Afghanistan. That would be a tragedy because there is a serious reform effort under way.

Jenny Tonge: I entirely agree with the Secretary of State's worries about Pakistan's being destabilised by the current action, and I thank her very much for that useful explanation.
	The other reservations about the Bill will be dealt with, yet again, in Committee, and I hope that it will soon become law. That will be a proud moment for the Secretary of State; it will be the first international development Act of Parliament since 1980, and I think that the previous Chairman of the International Development Committee said that that Act was a pretty pathetic measure. I remind the hon. Member for Meriden that 18 years of Conservative government brought none of the measures on bribery, arms control or tied aid that she suggested in her speech. None of those issues were addressed, and I am delighted by the conversion that has taken place in the Conservative party.

Caroline Spelman: Following that observation, I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in congratulating my former right hon. Friend, John Major, on his efforts to raise debt relief and help for poorer nations higher up the agenda.

Jenny Tonge: Indeed, and I have acknowledged that fact in the other speeches on debt that I have made in the House.
	I should like to remind the House what the Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference. While teaching the world to sing and in talking about Africa, he said that we must
	provide more aid, untied to trade; write off debt; help with good governance and infrastructure; training to the soldiers, with UN blessing, in conflict resolution; encouraging investment; and access to our markets so that we practise the free trade we are so fond of preaching.
	He said all those wonderful things, so we have to make further progress on debt. More money needs to go into the aid budget, and we need to reform the WTO and to have tighter export controls on arms, which will be discussed during the remaining stages of the Export Control Bill tomorrowall of which involves doing all those things. It requires joined-up government, so that Departments act together to prevent catastrophes from happening.
	The Prime Minister went on to say:
	But it's a deal: on the African side, true democracy,
	which the Conservatives are fond of mentioning,
	no more excuses for dictatorship, abuses of humans rights; no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states
	all very good stuff, but let us remember that those faults can also be found in many of the countries that form the coalition against terrorism. That is conveniently forgotten at the moment, perhaps for very good reasons, but we must be careful not to apply double standards because that will not help us achieve the development goals.
	The Prime Minister then said:
	The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world.
	indeed it is
	But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier.
	Indeed, it will become deeper and angrier, not just in Africa, and my children and grandchildren will reap the harvest. Let us hope that that was not just an attack of self-righteousness on his part, but a genuine change of direction, which will put the Bill and international development at the top of agenda for the rest of this Parliament.

John Battle: In introducing the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quoted the fact that the world population is now 6 billion, of whom 1.2 billion live in extreme poverty and 2.8 billionalmost halflive on less than $2 a day, but we sometimes become phased by the scale of the challenge and we lose perspective, so I should like to express the challenge in other terms. If we were to shrink the world to just 100 people, there would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 north or south Americans and 8 Africans. Some 70 of those people would be illiterate, 80 would live in substandard housing, one person would own a computer and just six peopleall Americanswould possess 59 per cent. of the world's wealth, and 50 would suffer from serious malnutrition.
	In considering those 100 people, I concur with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). Indeed, the Prime Minister, in his initiative, has insisted that if we do not include those eight Africans within our globe, we shall simply stack up problems for the future, and conflicts elsewhere will come right into the hearts of our neighbourhoodsit is a very small world these days. Our globe seems smaller and is more interrelated and vulnerable than perhaps we realised before 11 September, but we all now know that.
	I shall repeat some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who referred to the State of the World's Children 2002. That report said that child malnutrition rates decreased by 17 per cent. during the previous decade, but the figure was only 17 per cent.the target was 50 per cent. In sub-Saharan Africa, the absolute number of malnourished children increased and life expectancy at birth is now 47 years. Lives are shorter, not longer than they were in 1980, and the figure is going in the wrong direction compared with a life expectancy of about 78 years in rest of the world.
	In all the World Bank's scenarios, which were published early in the spring of this year, the number of people living in poverty in Africa was estimated to increase by 2015the crucial target date for the UN's international development goals. In other words, the needs of the people of Africa are massively increasing. I simply suggest that sometimes aid inevitably follows the latest crisis, and as our attention inevitably turns to Afghanistan, Pakistan and the whole of that region, it is important to do our best to keep a focus on the increasing needs of Africa so that they are not lost from the agenda.
	I welcome this straightforward but rather limited Bill. Its purpose is clearly defined as ensuring that development assistance is focused on reducing poverty, which is absolutely welcome. The Government have made excellent progress in international development. The Prime Minister stressed international justice and launched a new Africa initiative. At the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the Chancellor stressed the need to address poverty reduction internationally, and he has campaigned on debt. The Secretary of State is now known internationally as a champion of international development.
	In December, the Department for International Development published the paper, Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor. I had the privilege to represent the Government in south-east Asian countries at that time, and the document received universal acclaim from poor countries who described it as groundbreaking because it set an agenda for the 21st century. The words are in place; we now have to turn them into action.
	The Bill is part of that process. Rather than defining the scope of development, it deals specifically with the authority to spend, and I want to focus on that. Some 25 per cent. of the Department's spending is through the European Union and the Commission. I was involved in such matters 25 years ago when the, European Court of Auditors described the spending of DGVIII, the development Directorate-General in the late 1970s and early 1980s as having weaknesses and shortcomings. That description appears in reports today. So the European Commission has not made much progress 25 years on in reforming the management of aid programmes. That becomes a greater and more urgent challenge with enlargement. The European Union needs to get a grip on those programmes, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend's Department will play a role in that.
	I also put down a marker on the need to reform the institutions of the United Nations. In addition to political reform of the Security Council, we need to reform its management of programmes. We need constantly to review and assess how they are performing. People often shout for UN help, but we need to consider the systems by which it delivers.

Clare Short: Nothing can replace the UN; it is very important. It has moral legitimacy and represents the whole world. However, many of its institutions are inefficient. We have published a series of strategies for each UN agency that we fund on how the reform agenda must progress. We are using the leverage of our resources to help drive that forward. It is important to achieve that.

John Battle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. In the same way as we have given leadership in respect of the principles of international development, that leadership is crucial in their implementation, whether in EU or UN organisations.
	Clause 6(3) deals with shareholder power, and I was grateful for my right hon. Friend's illumination of what that new power might entail. It is an imaginative instrument. Opposition Members referred to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and I, too, am worried that it has become a venture capital organisation that has lost its focus on poverty. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend says absolutely not. Can we keep an eye on it as we keep an eye on the UN and the Commission? We need to watch how it is used, because it is an important instrument.
	Clause 4(2) relates to development education, which is becoming more important. It might sound surprising, but it is amazing how many people now know where Afghanistan is and could say that Pakistan is its neighbour. A few weeks ago, they would not have known that basic geography. There is a thirst and hunger for information about the corners of our globe that have been neglected. The network of development education centres that work with schools is a good template, but they need support. I encourage my right hon. Friend to do all that she can to ensure that they receive a solid underpinning.
	Let us take that idea a stage further and consider not only attaching development education to school curriculums, with the help of the Department for Education and Skills, but building it into adult and further education. Adult education centres, colleges and institutions, including those in my constituency, which offer a range of courses such as languages, computer skills and hobbies could also offer development education. There is a need for that information because they cannot get it from a few short news bulletins on the radio and television.
	It is vital to keep development spending at the top of the agenda. We need international support for it and for development programmes. The Bill is about the authority to spend. Development education could encourage discussions on larger portmanteau terms, such as sustainable development and poverty. There is a welcome debate to be had on what we mean by poverty. We could refer to Amartya Sen's ideas on poverty, such as capabilities and functioning, or to the human development approach. The debate could include a discussion on whether sustainable development relates only to environment or whether it has a more holistic approach. I like the Kenyan proverb on sustainable development which says that we do not inherit the world from our parents; we have only got it on loan for our children. The link through the generations can also be built into development education. We need to get support for more practical commitment.
	The Bill's power is the authority to spend. The percentage of gross national product spent by the Government on development assistance is encouraging. The trend of cuts has been reversed. Between 1979 and 1997 we were well below the commitment to 0.7 per cent. Indeed, we constantly moved away from it. Had we continued the spending trend of the percentage of GNP that the Conservative Government inherited in 1979, we would be much closer to that target. Instead, however, we have 20 years to make up. I hope that my right hon. Friend knows that she has support in the House and the country as a whole to campaign to increase that proportion. The Dutch Government recently legislated that aid will be 0.8 per cent. of GNP. We hear much about the 2015 international development targets, but can we set firm mid-term goals for reaching that GNP target?
	I mentioned in my caricature of a shrunken world the six Americans who would own a large amount of the world's wealth. Tables for development assistance show that the United States is a substantial donor, second only to Japan, giving $9.58 billion. We give about $4.5 billion. However, in percentage terms, the United States gives only 0.1 per cent. of its gross domestic product. If it doubled that, it would be a massive increase. Perhaps by making an effort to increase our percentage we could encourage the United States to do the same. The percentage of 0.7 per cent. should remain the target figure. It is important and adds bite to the words and intentions, and enables us to carry the programmes forward.
	Development is about tackling global poverty by moving from tied aid to poverty reduction, and that is most welcome. In the 1960s we had the UN decade to increase growth by 5 per cent. In the 1970s the target was set at 0.7 per cent. Neither of those were reached. In the first decade of this millennium we have the White Paper and the Bill. They should allow us to shift the debate to a higher plain and to canvass more support. International development is a centre-stage concern. Despite emerging crises, it could remain there, but we need to deepen and broaden the debate. We do not want it to be a technical debate; rather, we want it to receive public support. We can get wider support in Britain's poorer communities which understand that our world is interlinked. Our sign of serious intent is that we will put positive programmes into practice, as well as issuing policy statements.
	It was encouraging that 24 million people from all walks of life around the world signed up to the Jubilee 2000 campaign. People have good spirits and good hearts, and are taking international development seriously. Perhaps the Bill, with its development assistance, is a step towards genuine development co-operation in the 21st century.

Tony Baldry: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), a colleague on the International Development Committee, who made a powerful speech. I agreed with everything that he said. His caricature of the shrunken world was very effective, and the statistics that he gave on that world were particularly powerful.
	The Bill seeks to signal that this country's international development budget is targeted at reducing poverty and is not intended to be a subsidy to UK exporters or UK businesses overseas. No one can dispute the urgency with which we need collectively to tackle poverty, and that urgency, I am sure, is shared by everyone in the Chamber, by Ministers and Opposition spokesmen alike and by every member of the Select Committee, which I am fortunate to chair. No amount of statistics can adequately portray the grinding, persistent poverty that so many fellow human beings have to endure. This September, I was fortunate enough to go to Burkina Faso as part of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. I was struck by the exhaustion felt by so many people who are permanently on the margins of survival. It is sometimes difficult for us to imagine what that must be like.
	Last Friday, the Financial Times observed in its editorial that
	the events of 11 September have triggered new thinking about aid for developing countries. Greater attention is being paid to those calling for more support from the developed world. The benefits of reducing poverty and antagonism towards the West have become clearer since the attacks on New York and Washington.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) was slightly pessimistic. We now have an unprecedented opportunity to impress on decision makers throughout the world the importance of international development.
	An article in The Observer last Sunday commented rather starkly that
	the United States is hated by poor nations because they believe the world super power manipulates global trade rules and imprisons them in debt. Europe with its huge subsidies to farmers and its tight protected markets is little better in their eyes.
	That is an overstatement, but it is certainly true that we all inhabit one world, in which we are all interdependent, and there is a moral duty on those who have to help those who have not.
	The Bill, in addition to authorising development aid, enables the Government to allocate funds for humanitarian help. At present, considerable collective thought and much media attention is rightly being devoted to the desperate humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. There are two important points that, in our natural and understandable concern for our fellow human beings, we should not overlook. In this, I support the comments of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke).
	First, the UN Secretary-General declared as long ago as June that Afghanistan was the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. The international community has been aware since the summer that some 5 million people in Afghanistan would be in difficulties this winter because of continuing conflict and persistent drought. As various NGOs have explained, they would have expected a huge crisis in Afghanistan this winter even if the events of 11 September had not occurred.
	Secondly, no one wants conflict, but such conflict as is taking place in Afghanistan would be avoidable if the Taliban simply complied with their obligations to the United Nations and with the resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, going back as far as 1999, which require them to hand over Osama bin Laden for trial. As the Secretary of State said, it behoves us all to uphold the moral authority of the United Nations. As a permanent member of the Security Council, this country has a particular duty to do so, and Parliament has a particular duty to support the Government in discharging that duty.
	Another important part of Parliament's work is to ensure that the reality of Government action matches the rhetoric of promises made by Governments in the spotlight of major international summits and conferences. For example, wealthy countries have promised to ensure that developing countries achieve the target of universal primary education by 2015. That pledge is clear and unambiguous.
	At the G8 meeting in Okinawa last year, the communiqu stated:
	no countries seriously committed to education for all will be thwarted in their achievements of this goal by lack of resources.
	Parliamentarians, particularly those from G8 countries, have a duty to ensure that their Governments match reality to rhetoric because, despite the pledge, there seems to be little progress in ensuring that there is a global initiative to get all the world's children into schools. Today, 125 million primary school-age children are not enrolled in school. Limited debt relief, inadequate aid and the failure of many countries to prioritise education are all barriers keeping children out of school.
	Even where there has been debt relief, it has not gone far enough. Of the first 22 countries to receive debt relief, more than half will spend more servicing their debts this year than they will spend on basic education. It is estimated that achieving universal primary education in those countries will cost $1.5 billion a year, yet they will spend a combined $1.8 billion servicing their debts in 2001. The world's neediest countries need deeper debt relief. We must fulfil promises made on debt relief.
	We had an interesting and detailed debate on debt last week in Westminster Hall, in which the Financial Secretary made clear the Government's commitment to the heavily indebted poor countries, or HIPC, initiative. Over the weekend, I was re-reading the Financial Secretary's remarks in Hansard. He gave a fair and accurate account of the HIPC process to date. It was less clear whether the Government considered such progress adequate and, if more were needed, what must be achieved and how. He tantalisingly told the House that the Government want to go faster and said:
	We could do more and are determined to do so.[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 1 November 2001; Vol. 373, c. 318WH.]
	However, he did not tell us what more they could do, where they could do it or how much faster they could do it.
	We need clear, acknowledged milestones by which we can judge progress on debt relief initiatives, not just by the number of countries that benefit from debt relief, but by the extent to which they are doing so. This week, a parliamentary delegation from the Philippines has been visiting Westminster, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, observed following a statement to the House this afternoon. On Monday evening, the President of the Senate in the Philippines, in a speech in Speaker's House, said that we need to stand shoulder to shoulder against international terrorism, but we also need to stand shoulder to shoulder against poverty.
	The world's poorest countries need more aid. Between 1990 and 2000, aid from G7 nations fell, and overall is still falling. On average, G7 countries give only 0.19 per cent. of GDP to development aida pathetic amount. Indeed, every G7 country, with the exception, I am glad to say, of the UK, is now giving less development aid than it was a decade ago. It is fair to observe that the latest report by the development assistance committee of the OECD shows that, in volume, the UK is now the fourth-largest aid donor in the world and, for the first time for 40 years, is ahead of France.
	However, as several hon. Members have commented, the DAC report also shows that the United States gives only 0.1 per cent. of gross national income in development aid. Collectively, we must work out how we can engage fellow legislators in the United States and persuade them that it is in the United States' interests to help to lift countries out of poverty. As the hon. Member for Leeds, West said, even if the United States simply doubled the percentage of GNI that goes to development aid, a substantial difference would be made to the total amount. Overall, the decline in aid from the international community seriously overshadows the modest extra sums that have been freed for poorer countries through the HIPC initiative.
	The universal declaration of human rights could not be clearer. It states:
	Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages,
	but for millions of children that is an empty pledge. For them, access to education is not a human right, but an unaffordable privilege as parents face a multitude of fees, levies and payments. Let me give a simple, human illustration. In Burkina Faso, we met many street childrenas one would in any poor country. When I asked why they were trying to raise money, many gave the interesting reply that they wanted to be able to pay their school fees. I do not think that they were dissembling; their answers were perfectly straightforward.
	We must ensure that aid goes to those who need it most, because it does not always do so. I speak as one who in my party is known to be, to put it crudely, pro-European. The Bill does not cover the large sums of Department for International Development money that go to the European Commission as this country's contribution to European Union aid. Of that aid, the Commission allocates three times more to education in central and eastern Europe than to education in poor countries. That is not sustainable development. The issue must be systematically examined by Parliament. If the EU wants to give structural funds to accession countries hoping to enter the EU, a budget separate from the EU aid budget should be established.
	What needs to be achieved is clear and straightforward, requiring no further meetings of the great and the good, and no further resolutions or promises. It simply requires countries to start delivering what they have already promised and agreed for the benefit of the world's children. As the Secretary of State said to me at the last International Development questions:
	We do not need more and more conferences and meetings across the world. We need to implement what we have already agreed.[Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 267.]
	I entirely agree.
	A further example of the need for Governments and the international community to deliver is the promises made at the 1995 world summit for social development in Copenhagen. The Secretary of State has stated her belief that the 2015 targets on poverty reduction will be met. I look forward to reading the detail of the letter on the subject that she sent me. We all agree that it is essential that we succeed in meeting those targets, but omens indicate that doing so will be difficult. Causes of concern include the fact that poverty in south Asia is falling at only half the rate needed to achieve the 2015 target.
	At the 1995 world summit, Governments pledged to cut child death rates by two thirds by 2015. In fact, child mortality is falling at less than half the rate required to achieve that target. That is not some hypothetical future crisis: if today, Governments collectively were on track to meet the 2015 target, 1.7 million fewer children would die this year alone. I know that it is difficult to get one's head around such huge figures, but the deaths of those children are avoidable.
	The crisis is especially stark in Africa. If current trends continue, almost 5 million children will die in Africa in 2015 alonea terrifying and chilling but accurate statistic. The tragedy is that the world does not lack the resources needed to prevent children from dying unnecessarily, or failing to get into school and so not getting an education. What the world appears to lack is the leadership and the political will needed to translate commitments already made into positive action.
	International development should include the encouragement of trade as well as the delivery of aid. Oxfam argues, rightly, that trade has
	the potential to act as a powerful motor of poverty reduction.
	Oxfam calculates that every tiny 0.7 per cent. increase in exports from a developing country generates as much income as it receives each year in aid.
	Decisions at the WTO conference at Doha will be important. The position was stated simply by the Financial Times in its editorial last Friday:
	Industrial countries must not forget the importance of their trade barriers in hindering progress in developing countries. The best signal that could be given to the poor would be a commitment at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha to tear down trade barriers in agriculture, basic goods and services.
	Strong stuff from the Financial Times.
	The poor are often doubly handicapped in the board game of world trade. Often, the dice are loaded against them. To export, they have to do the equivalent of throwing a double six because of high tariffs set against them; and often they cannot get on to the board to compete at all because of subsidised food and commodities being dumped on their doorstep. We must remember that three quarters of the poorest people in the world live in rural areas and are largely dependent on agriculture.
	I wish the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry every success at Doha. I listened carefully to what she had to say today, and I hope that on her return she will be able to tell the House that Doha was a success, but I fear that the omens are not good. The least developed countries group met last week in Geneva and expressed concern that none of its input was getting through to the Doha draft declaration. Perhaps proving the point that too little listening is taking place, Stuart Harbison, chairman of the WTO's general council, stated that in any event the draft declaration was now final.
	As well as concerns about agriculture and dumpingwhether it be the US dumping cheap steel abroad, or Europe dumping cheap sugar abroadthere is an on-going dispute about the developing world's lack of access to cheap medicines. The issues are complex, but the statistics are stark: tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS kill 5 million people each year, most in developing countries.
	If we are not going to get agreement in the short term on relaxing TRIPS, we have to make sure that the global health fund is well funded, that it works, that it is operational as soon as possible, that countriesespecially those with profitable pharmaceuticals industriesmake worthwhile contributions and that we persuade pharmaceuticals companies to become involved and make an appropriate contribution. I acknowledge that the Government have given $200 million to the fund, but it must not be a one-off donation. The UK, which has a large and sophisticated pharmaceuticals industry, should be willing to give additional sums in due course.

Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether that $200 million is in addition to projected spending by the Department for International Development? Does he agree that it must be truly additional if it is to have the effect that he wants?

Tony Baldry: It is one of the characteristics of international development debates that those who participate collectively exhort International Development Ministers to try to extract as much money as possible from their Treasury colleagues.
	One of the useful aspects of the initiatives on debt is that the International Development Committee has, on occasion, been able to bring the Chancellor before it to talk about international development. There is no doubt that the current Chancellor, like his predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), is genuinely interested and keen to see what he can do in respect of international development. One must hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is always as helpful and forthcoming.
	Everything that we have discussed this evening requires a constant commitment to sustainable development, and clause 9 includes such a commitment. Interestingly, tomorrow the House will deal with the remaining stages of the Export Control Bill, in which the Government say that they cannot define sustainable development. Today, however, they can define sustainable development in the International Development Bill, which is slightly puzzling.
	Of course it is right that our development budget focuses on the poor of the world and that that commitment is underpinned by legislation. The test of success, however, will not be the words of the Bill; it will be whether the international community collectively delivers on international obligations that are already in place.

Piara S Khabra: Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not in the Chamber, I congratulate her on the work that she has done so far and on her down-to-earth businesslike manner. She has given evidence to the Select Committee on International Development on many occasions, and I can confirm that the relationship between Ministers and the Committee is reasonably good.
	As a member of the Select Committee, I have seen for myself the importance of the work done by the Department and have witnessed at first hand the terrible living conditions in African countries, in the Indian subcontinent and, this year on a visit with the Committee, in Vietnam and Cambodia. The Department's work seems to increase day by day, especially in light of the attacks on 11 September. It is now working hard to deliver aid to the people of Afghanistan, despite the obstacles created by the Taliban, both before and during the current bombing campaign. All sorts of difficulties are being created to obstruct the delivery of aid in Afghanistan.
	Recent events have created both short-term challenges and long-term opportunities for the Department and other donors. Western nations have now begun to reassess the security implications of providing aid as a means of reducing resentment in developing countries. Reducing poverty may not completely eliminate the threat from fundamentalists such as Osama bin Laden who, after all, comes from a comfortable Saudi background and is a rich man, but it will address the squalid conditions that can act as a breeding ground for those whom the terrorist leaders exploit as their foot soldiers. We have recently seen that followers of bin Laden are indoctrinating young Muslims to fight for Islam.
	The new interest in aid needs to be directed wisely and correct decisions have to be made; the Bill consolidates the ability of the Secretary of State to ensure that that is done. The World Bank's yearly report, released this month, says that the long-term prospects of developing countries could be boosted significantly by removing barriers to trade. Its economists suggest that over the 10 years following liberalisation, world income could increase by as much as $2.8 trillion, with more than half those gains going to developing countries; that could result in 300 million more people being lifted out of poverty by 2015, in addition to the 600 million who would escape abject poverty as a result of normal growth. That forecast may be over-ambitious, but rich countries should be willing to dismantle the barriers that adversely affect developing countries, including subsidies, especially in agriculture, and high tariffs on selected products.
	By addressing such issues, we can overcome what Patricio Aylwin, former President of Chile, last week told the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations was the tragic failure to reduce poverty. He said that the reasons for that failure are a lack of political commitment from richer countries, the failure of developing countries to help their own poor, and the wrong economic approaches. Recently, globalisation has become a controversial concept; we must work harder to make it work for the poor. Supporters of globalisation have to convince members of the anti lobby, some of whom are genuinely concerned about the effects of globalisation on developing and poor countries.
	The events of 11 September may have reinvigorated the debate on aid, but they have also created dangers. For example, aid may now be granted on the ground of political expediency, rather than effectiveness in reducing poverty. In its rush to consolidate the coalition against terrorists, the west may be tempted to turn a blind eye to Government failures. The suggestion of generous debt relief for Pakistanconsidered a key ally by the United States in the current campaignfrom the Paris Club of governmental creditors is a cause for concern.
	I urge the Secretary of State to use the discretionary powers granted to her in the Bill to ensure that this country rewards genuine efforts to reduce poverty. Alongside recognition for effective policies pursued by the Governments of developing nations, international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank should be allowed to act on their professional judgment, not on the political goals of their shareholders. For example, the IMF should not be pressured into relaxing its strict conditions for loans. That principle should also apply to bilateral aid. If a recipient knows that it has been guaranteed aid regardless of its actions, that can have the effect of creating a moral hazard.
	In these increasingly difficult economic times, it is essential that we do not sideline international development.With countries across the globe sliding towards recession, and the already faltering United States economy being rocked further by the 11 September disaster, western nations may be tempted to lose interest in the near future. I hope that the Secretary of State will use the influence granted by the Bill to ensure that that does not happen. As has already been demonstrated in the USA under former President Bill Clinton, rich countries can be reluctant to reduce trade barriers, even in prosperous times. During a recession, they are more likely to want to erect barriers against the perceived threats to their industries.
	I urge the Secretary of State to encourage developing countries to focus on effective, achievable measures and to keep their eye on the ball. At its meeting in July this year, the former Organisation of African Unity, now the African Union, made a distracting effort to relaunch itself with a single Parliament and currencyan absurd idea in a continent racked by war and famine. Attention should be focused on reducing poverty, not grandiose schemes that are currently unworkable.
	It is in our power to make life better for hundreds of millions of people all over the world. However, we must make the right decisions and be willing to see our efforts through to the end. Current political circumstances present a challenge to the world's democracies. I am sure that the Secretary of State and her Department will face up to it. As my right hon. Friend continues her good work, I wish her every success in helping the world's poor and needy. I support the Bill.

Edward Leigh: In a debate on the international development White Paper on 3 May, I said:
	This is a very important debate on a vital issue, and it is a wake-up call. If we in the west do not take more interest at the highest political level, we will reap the whirlwind.[Official Report, 3 May 2001; Vol. 367, c. 1070.]
	I was thinking of possible events in the coming decades; I did not think that we would reap the whirlwind so quickly. We face a crisis of terrorism in the world because poverty breeds fundamentalism, which breeds terrorism.
	I want to repeat what I have said on several occasions in the House. It is vital that all of usnot only from left-wing but from Conservative traditionsarticulate the point that the huge divide in living standards between the developed and the less developed world is one of the most important issues for the developed world. Those of us from a Conservative tradition must argue as strongly for, and be as committed to, the cause as those who speak from the left-wing tradition. It is therefore important for Conservatives to take an active interest in the debate.
	The debate is rare because many of us can identify with much of what has been said by hon. Members of all parties. There is not much of a political divide so far. I want not simply to repeat what has already been said, but to deal with a special concern. I am as committed as anyone to reducing world poverty and to the Bill becoming law, but I have a particular anxiety, which I have expressed over many years in Adjournment debates, letters to high commissioners and heads of Government throughout the world, about human rights abuses, especially those based on religious persecution.
	I asked the Secretary of State a question at the beginning of the debate because I wanted her to have an opportunity to tell the House that, in her anxiety about poverty, she acknowledged that human rights abuses and bad governance are often a root cause of it. I was pleased with her answer. She is a good Minister and when a Member of Parliament, even an Opposition Member, asks her a question, she tries to answer it. That is rather rare.
	The Secretary of State did not say everything that I wanted her to say, but she made the important point that the world's poorest people often come from religious and ethnic minorities. However, she did not take the next step. Perhaps I am being unfair, and the Minister can answer my question when he winds up the debate, but the Secretary of State did not go as far as I would have liked and say, When I or my Ministers make decisions on aid, good governance and the persecution of minorities are always at the forefront of our minds. I hope that they are, because I believe that that is vital.
	I want to illustrate my point with three countries: Vietnam, Egypt and Burma. In a parliamentary answer on 4 March, the former Under-Secretary at the Department for International Development stated that the United Kingdom gave more than 5 million a year to Vietnam, and that the sum was
	scheduled to increase significantly over the next three years, in recognition of the Vietnamese Government's commitment to poverty reduction and social equity. Rural development is the Government's highest priority for donor support.[Official Report, 14 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 1009W.]
	However, Vietnam has an appalling human rights record.
	I shall give one example. The Montagnard people of the central highlands of Vietnam are being persecuted. Members of that minority are being deported, arrested and tortured. I should be amazed if any of the 5 million aid that we give to Vietnam goes anywhere near the Montagnard people. Peaceful protests have been broken up. The persecution of an indigenous hill tribe is happening in a country that we support.
	The Montagnard Foundation, a human rights organisation, reports:
	Today the devastation continues and we are faced with continued and sustained policies that exploit our homelands and persecute our race through forced assimilation, human rights violations and genocide enacted by the current Vietnamese government.
	I leave my argument for the Minister to consider. When we give 5 million to Vietnam, what steps do we take to remind the Vietnamese Government, if they need reminding, of the cruel persecution that they visit on some of their population? Do we use aid as a lever? I doubt it, but I should be delighted to hear from the Minister if I am wrong.
	I could take examples from many countries throughout the world, but let us consider Egypt, which is quite a good example because it is relatively well governed. In a parliamentary answer on 25 April, the former Under- Secretary stated:
	Our budget for bilateral assistance to Egypt was 4 million in 200001 and is set to remain at this level in 200102.[Official Report, 25 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 297W.]
	We therefore give considerable aid to Egypt. Outright persecution or genocide is not happening there, but there is unacceptable discrimination against a religious minoritythe Copts.
	The Spectator states:
	Things are difficult for Christians here now. In Upper Egypt their houses are burned and they are sometimes attacked. In Cairo the other day three Copts were shot dead. Christians die because they are Christians: the third century is back. And yet we are in a country which still feels entirely stable despite the terrorism, and where passers-by call out 'Welcome' to foreigners.
	I choose the example of a country that is an ally to some extent, and which has a relatively moderate Government. The Government do not persecute the Copts, but there is unacceptable discrimination in, for example, employment.
	There is a well documented case that proves that the Egyptian Government are not doing enough to protect this minority in their homeland. Egypt is very different from Vietnam and Burma, but are the Government using the 4 million or 5 million that they give to Egypt every year as leverage? Do they raise such issues with the Egyptian Government?
	I have raised the subject of Burma in Adjournment debates and at Question Time. It is a shocking example of human rights abuses. We are considering what must be described as the genocide of the Karen people and Shan people in eastern Burma. There are appalling tales of thousands of internally displaced people and of brutal actions by the Burmese Government. What should the UK Government do? Should they say to the Burmese Government, You are so appalling and brutal that we will give you no aid, and thus lose all leverage? Or should they try to direct resources and aid to those who are being persecuted by that Government? To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who leads for the Opposition: I do not think that we need to give aid to the central Burmese Government, but I think that we can help the people who are being persecuted. To be fair to this Government, I acknowledge that they are giving humanitarian aid to these people, but the amounts of money concerned are relatively small, given the sheer scale of the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Burma.
	Those are three examples, and I shall leave the matter there. This is a subject about which I feel very strongly. We must be committed to reducing world poverty, but unless we have the moral courage to insist, as we hand out aid, on good governance, on respect for human rights, and on a determination that religious minorities shall not be persecuted, we are going to lose a powerful mechanism for improving the lot of minorities all over the world. I hope that when the Bill becomes law, and when our whole focus is on reducing poverty, we will always bear in mind the fact that poverty exists in so many areas of the world not for historical reasons, and not just for economic reasons, but because these countries are plagued by brutal and corrupt Governments.

Ann McKechin: I strongly support the Bill, which consolidates the Government's policy to ensure that our aid budget is poverty-focused and dedicated to reaching the international development targets. The Government's announcement of their intention to end the practice of tied aid is to be commended as a strong signal of our commitment to offer genuine assistance in a spirit of partnership with the developing world, rather than imposing a top-down solution, often with inappropriate and wasteful aid.
	A cynic once observed to me that the level of the UK aid budget before 1997 bore an uncanny resemblance to the amount spent on the purchase of Hawk jets by the recipient countries. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned, many of us well remember the scandal of the Pergau dam case under the Tory Administration, in which aid funds were provided in return for a construction contract that had no economic benefit to the poor of that country. The World Bank has estimated that tying aid reduces the real value of aid by 25 per cent., and the termination of the scheme will allow the Department for International Development to use its funds more effectively and fully.
	Since 1997, there has been a shift in Government policy towards co-ordinating the work of all Departments involved in international affairs as well as the Department for International Developmentbe it the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry or the Treasurywith our international poverty reduction and social justice aims. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development have taken a leading role at World Bank, International Monetary Fund and G8 meetings, particularly in expressing the need for a comprehensive and effective debt relief programme.
	Only last week, The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, speaking on the forthcoming World Trade Organisation talks in Doha, stated:
	The round must benefit all developing countriesthe smaller ones not just the larger countries. We must agree rules which genuinely reflect their different levels of development.
	I am delighted that the Government recognise that the issues regarding our trade policy are integral to the aim of poverty reduction. I acknowledge that the UK has played a leading role in ensuring that developing countries can participate in the World Trade Organisation as equal members. I particularly welcome the announcement that the Department for International Development has doubled the budget for investment in capacity building from 15 million to 30 million over the next three years.
	But there is frankly still no level playing field in our global systems of trade. The poorest developing countries are expected to compete on equal terms with countries that operated for years behind protectionism while they industrialised. The liberalisation theory adopted by the World Trade Organisation is based on notions of supply and demand, in which consumers and suppliers negotiate a fair price in the marketplace, but that theory ignores the reality of the poorest people in, say, sub-Saharan Africa who have nothing to offer in the world marketplace.
	The theory of trade liberalisation lies at the heart of the problem with an organisation such as the WTO. This is an economic model designed to maximise growth; only later did we develop the notion that poverty could be reduced by the trickle-down of economic growth. Achieving economic, gender or racial equality is well beyond the realms of the theory's own objectives. Certain services, such as the supply of clean water or education, can be seen as a right whether an individual can afford to purchase them or not. Companies will not be prepared to provide such services free; only Governments can do that. However, the notions of rights and democratic decision making are not an integral part of the theory.
	We need to show in the current negotiations that all our international bodies are committed to poverty reduction as a principal policy aim. Even the World Bank and IMF have belatedly found themselves required to address this issue when justifying their policies, although there is still a long way to go in linking the new-style rhetoric of the poverty reduction strategy papers to the circumstances on the ground. As yet, the WTO has still to embrace a specific aim to reduce poverty; that needs to be the core of this week's talks if we wish to create true global security.
	As I said earlier today in an intervention on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Department for International Development should, as a first step, ensure that the Government require the WTO to carry out an independent impact assessment of the general agreement on trade in services treaty before there is further liberalisation. Such an assessment has been promised but not delivered. The poor of the world are entitled to see proof of the benefits of the current settlement before any further liberalisation is agreed.
	If we in the European Union are to prove that we are serious about development, we must open up our agricultural markets and substantially cut the subsidies. I am pleased to see that the Government recognise that problem.
	As I have said, the Department for International Development has recognised that more needs to be done to assist the developing countries' capacity to negotiate at the WTO talks this week but, sadly, the agenda is still set by the northern hemisphere. I was disappointed to read in The Guardian yesterday that the current draft agenda was set behind closed doors in a couple of meetings attended by only 21 of the 142 member countries, a pattern which was set in previous trade rounds and continues despite the fact that thatnot the demonstrations going on outsidewas the principal reason behind the collapse of the Seattle talks in 1999. This practice has caused the exclusion of the majority of WTO members from the all important agenda setting.
	Too much influence still rests with the powerful multinational lobbyists who surround the WTO headquarters in Geneva and who continually seek to control the trade agenda. If we truly wish future negotiations to be transparent and democratic, they must be tailored to suit the capacity of those least able to take part. It is frankly disgraceful that 28 developing member countries have no representative at Geneva, and that many more have only one representative to cover up to 40 meetings a week. That is completely inadequate.
	I call for greater consideration to be given to the need effectively to regulate multinational companies to ensure that sustainable development and true poverty reduction can be achieved. The world needs international trade rules, but to date they have favoured the narrow commercial interests of the north and of the largest corporations at the expense of the wider public interest and smaller economic enterprises. If we are to have a comprehensive settlement, we also need to consider an effective multilateral agreement on labour rights under the leadership of the International Labour Organisation, and recognition of the need for environmental controls.
	We stand now at an important crossroads. We can either retain the status quo and risk greater economic insecurity and income disparity in the south, or take the more difficult choices to provide equity, sustainability and poverty eradication.
	It should be remembered that the very poorest countries account for only a tiny proportion of foreign investment and, amazingly, they receive only a disproportionately small amount of aid. The European Union aid budget has been mentioned today. In the last few years, that has given less aid, rather than more, to the poorest countries. Opening rich countries' markets, although welcome, will be of limited value in the short and medium term, given that these countries account for less than 1 per cent. of world trade.
	It is essential that we consider our poverty reduction strategy on a country-by-country basis and take into account the extent and depth of poverty that apply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, more emphasis should be placed on increasing domestic and regional trade, rather than being principally on an export market directed at the northern hemisphere.
	Urgent assistance needs to be given to the estimated 71 countries that suffer from unsustainable debts to allow them to provide basic services to their citizens and, just as importantly, to enable them to develop the economic infrastructure necessary to compete in the open market.
	Only 23 countries qualify under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative and, to date, only 6 per cent. of their debt has been wiped off. That is disgraceful. We must be prepared to consider ever more radical and quicker debt relief if we are to have any chance of meeting our international development targets.
	If we truly wish to eradicate poverty from the world, we in the northern hemisphere must be prepared to make real changes to our lives. If we want the next generation to benefit from a safer world, we must make those changes now.

Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), who put her finger on an important aspect when she spoke about agenda setting. Some of us have now discovered that those who set the agenda have already predetermined the outcome. It is therefore important that the agenda should be set for the benefit not just of the donor but of the countries that need help.
	I welcome the opportunity to give a Northern Ireland voice in this debate. It was said earlier that the poor are the most oppressed. It is fascinating that, per capita, the people of Northern Ireland, with a gross domestic product of about 80 per cent. that of the UK as a whole, will give more pro rata than the UK in international care and in charitable donations. Against that background, I shall press the Government to do more, although I support the principle behind the Bill.
	Like the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I was privileged this morning to meet in political discussions a delegation from the Philippines. I was fascinated to hear again the message that had been sent forth the previous evening about poverty. Mindanao, one of the least developed islands of the Philippines, desperately needs development because the young peopleindigenous people as well as those of the Muslim communityare now prey to recruitment to world terrorism. The delegation made a plea that we help them to alter the infrastructure to improve development there. We were also told that, although the Philippines produces some delightful fruit, which by the time it reaches European markets is extremely expensive, the producers receive very little for their work. We must try to change the pattern of trade and marketing to help those who could be helping themselves.
	Overseas development is a reserved matter. The Bill refers specifically to details relating to Scotland and Wales and says that there is a requirement to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Why not the Northern Ireland Assembly? Has it no role to play, or no authority to encourage people to work internationally? Schedule 1 contains a clear reference to health authorities and other bodies. Over the years, our health authorities have sought to improve the quality of life in developing countries. Why does not the Northern Ireland Executive, to whom such powers are now devolved, have the same mention?
	I have a high regard for the Secretary of State, with her concern for world development and the poor. I pressed her earlier on the question of targets that are not met. I am often asked by people in Northern Ireland why we have still not met the target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. If one examines this country's budget over the years, one sees that the contingency fund was able to deal with issues that arose, but we were not able to increase our aid budget to meet the target that had been set.
	Governments have a tendency to use international development money to promote their own political agendas. That struck us forcefully in Northern Ireland when American international aid, which should be used primarily to help developing countries, was used for political purposes by President Reagan to give us the International Fund for Ireland as a testimonial gift to Tip O'Neill, who was retiring as Speaker of Congress.
	Developed nations must start to be more responsible and not look after themselves alone. Given this nation's Christian heritage, we should give more consideration not to self-interest but to the interest of those really in need. The Master said that the poor would be always with us. That is one of the issues that I was trying to tease out with the Secretary of State. There has been no appreciable change in the number of people throughout the world who live below the poverty line. In 1987, the target was $1 and in 1998, 1.2 million people were still living in extreme poverty on $1 a day. Simple mathematics shows that $1 went further in 1987 than it did in 1998, and it certainly goes even less far today. We must be more upfront in dealing with these issues.
	Many points have already been dealt with and I do not want to repeat them for the sake of it. However, I wish to draw attention to one issue. In politics, and in some other spheres of life, we have a marvellous ability to use language to conceal rather than reveal. In relation to this Bill, I have seen a reference to the need to measure the development of reproductive health services
	for all individuals of appropriate ages.
	What is the real purpose of reproductive health services? I thought that it was to assist in the production of new children. Sometimes, however, both in the United Kingdom and internationally, we seem to use the term in discussing how to ensure that children are not born.
	For 50 years, China, for example, has maintained a policy of trying to restrict population growth. Now, its population balance is out of kilter. Its population is ageing and there are not enough young people coming along. I would like to think that reproductive health services are not intended to stop children being born by means of enforced sterilisation or other methods.
	Other hon. Members wish to speak, and I know that we shall have other opportunities to develop our arguments in relation to the Bill, but I should like to know whether there has been a reassessment of the real need for and provision of official development assistance. If I understand the figures correctly, the United Kingdom has provided 25 per cent. of our aid budget through the European Union aid budget. Time and again, however, we have been told that that budget has not been handled properly. Why should we allow 25 per cent. of the money that our people want to go to developing countries to be squandered and wasted by the European Union?

Roger Casale: I welcome the Bill, which will be a milestone in our changing approach to international development issues both in the United Kingdom and internationally. I also welcome the Bill's emphasis on the elimination of poverty, which from now on is to be the overarching strategic objective of all our development work, entrenched in statute, I hope, as an immutable goal.
	No more will we have a situation in the United Kingdom, as we have unfortunately had under previous Administrations, in which overseas aid was given on the condition that it would be used to buy goods or even arms from this country. The Bill will ultimately help to boost our exports by making poorer countries richer, but not by offering the type of crass trade-offs between aid and trade that we have seen before. Instead, with trade liberalisation and the forgiveness of debt, aid will be one of the complementary instruments to liberate the potential of the world's poorest countries.
	Despite my remarks about previous Administrations and past events, I welcome the cross-party support for the Bill. I know that the support that was voiced by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), is genuine and based on personal experience and support. I hope that that support will be sustained as we build on the foundation of this new Bill to expand our development work and development efforts.
	I welcome too the Opposition parties' support for the Bill. We must all recognise that the elimination of global poverty has become not only a political project, but one of the great if not the greatest moral issues of our time. That point was driven home to me when, last year, I had the honour of leading a delegation of more than 20 Members of Parliament and peers to take part in a worldwide parliamentary assembly that was convened by the Vatican as part of the jubilee year celebrations in Rome. At the conference, I spoke of the lead that Britain is taking in promoting debt relief around the world, moving ahead of other nations to cancel debt owed to Britain by some of the world's poorest countries, and pushing the international community for faster, deeper and wider debt relief.
	It is not only in the Christian faith that the moral imperative of eliminating debt is so emphatically stated. I think that there is a growing collaboration around the world between religious leaders of the great religious faiths, to make the elimination of poverty the central focus for the international community and for all international work, and to ensure that that objective of poverty reduction is placed at the top of the international agenda and stays at the top for years to come.
	Underpinning that moral concern which is drawn from religious inspiration lies a strong and potentially universal conception of justice. We have an obligation to ensure that in moving to a world in which there is more economic growth and opportunity, we do not do so at the cost of the world's poor, or in a manner that leaves behind part of the world or prejudices and harms the interests of some of the world's most vulnerable people.
	Each generation re-dedicates its commitment to those goals of global social justice and human rights, and the Bill represents the aspirations of this generation as we seek to rededicate ourselves to those aims. Those aims and goals are widely understood and shared in Britain, where so many respected non-governmental organisations have over the years established themselves as world leaders in the field. They include Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children and ActionAid, to name only a few. So much is done in this country by individuals and by charitable and voluntary organisations to improve the human condition of people around the world.
	It is in Britain's best interests to respond generously to international crises and disasters. Despite our imperial past, we have a long tradition of positive engagement to relieve poverty, save lives, and develop and sustain communities around the world. I am pleased that the NGOs that I mentioned, and others, were so closely involved in the drafting of the Bill.
	It is 20 years since a major landmark Bill of this kind was passed here, and even thatas we have heardwas a consolidating measure bringing together existing provisions. I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State say that we have subsequently worked to narrow the gap between rich and poor, although I hope that the Minister will give further statistics to confirm that.
	Great progress has certainly been made, especially in improving the world's health, but, as has been said, more than 1 billion people still live in extreme poverty, of whom 70 per cent. are women; and 320 million children have no access to primary education. That is why it is so important for the world community to re-dedicate itself to the international development goals set for this generation, which include reducing by 50 per cent. the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015.
	We now live in a world shaped by global economic activity and financial flows, from which no nation and no society can seek refuge. Well-intentioned as their concerns may be, the anti-globalisation protesters cannot themselves get outside the process of globalisation, and the same applies to the world's poor. Nor can we, in today's world, seek simply to compensate those threatened with poverty, living in poverty, or at risk of being left behind by the forces of globalisation.
	Although $50 billion is now being spent on aid around the world, we shall never be able to establish a system of transfers that would compensate the poor for their condition or bring sustained relief. What we can do is refocus that aid, increase it, and put it to use through measures that will be effective in eliminating poverty, as the Bill seeks to do. We must learn to use the $50 billion as an investment, rather than just as money that we spend on the poor.
	As well as committing public investment, we must open up the economies of the poorest countries to private capital and investment flows. We must work to invest in good governance and better public services in such countriesespecially health and educationand in infrastructure to make them more attractive and more fit to receive the benefits of trade and investment flows rather than just aid.
	That is behind the notion of sustainable development, which is being restated for the present generation in the Bill. It has been restated by the Secretary of State, who has spoken of lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries for which provision is made. Our aid must be an investment that will sustain the development of the world's poorest societies for many years to come.
	If we succeed in refocusing our aid as investment in the world's poor, we should then work to increase that investment. Despite all our effortsdespite the Department's increased spendingthis country is still some way from achieving the United Nations' target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product being spent on aid. I hope that the Secretary of State will use the success of the Bill to set out a clear timetable for the reaching of that target very soon, and I also hope that that will have cross-party support.
	There is, I believe, an overwhelming political, moral and practical case for refocusing our development assistance on the elimination of poverty around the world, and that is what the Bill will achieve. It will help to ensure that aid is provided in a way that will sustain the development of the world's poorest societies. We shall come to see aid as an investment that, over time, will help to close the gap between rich and poor, and alleviate the terrible suffering that is still so much a part of the human condition. As I have said, every generation restates its case for making the world a better place.
	In the 19th century, my constituency played host to William Wilberforce, who lived in Wimbledon while he was working in this place for the abolition of slavery. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her Department, under the leadership of Sir John Vereker, who is also my constituent, on the lead that this country is taking in raising the elimination of poverty to the top of the international agenda, and helping to reform not only the way in which UK aid works but the whole international approach to debt relief and aid. My right hon. Friend rightly has the support tonight of the whole House, and that of the vast majority of decent, caring people in Britain who want the Government to succeed in alleviating the plight of the world's poor and in entrenching the search for more global justice to make the world a better and safer place.

Simon Thomas: I recall speaking on Second Reading of the earlier Bill and on its later stages. Many hon. Members complained then that we had not had enough debates about international development, but somehow that complaint has not been heard tonight. I wonder why. Given that we are having a second bite at the Bill and that we debated the heavily indebted poor countries initiative in Westminster Hall last week, hon. Members feel that they have had an opportunity to make their comments before.
	I take this opportunity to make some points on the Bill on behalf not only of my party, Plaid Cymru, but of the Scottish National party. We have formed a parliamentary group so I speak for both parties tonight when I welcome the Bill very much.
	Two issues connected with the Bill have arisen following the events of 11 September. The first arises from the fact that many people in Wales have asked since those terrible events what the National Assembly can do to help. Many people have asked me whether the Assembly can provide development aid itself, or whether Wales can raise money for the needs of Afghanistan. I looked into the matter, but I regret to say that we have not yet had the devolution of international development to the National Assembly.
	It is interesting, however, to reflect on clause 9, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), because it contains an element of devolution. There is a provision in the Bill for agencies such as health authoritiesalthough we are abolishing those in Waleshealth trusts or tourist boards, such as the Wales tourist board, to become involved in international aid, albeit in terms of agreements and not financially. In that context, I wonder whether it is possible to re-examine that issue, in the light of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and whether the National Assembly could play a different and more practical role in helping its employeesfor exampleto become involved in international aid agreements. Certainly, one of the consequences of 11 September in Wales was a massive concern, led by the churches and supported by many others, to encourage aid from the Welsh people to go to the needy people in Afghanistan.
	The second issue is the interesting concept, reflected by several hon. Members who have spoken tonight, that although we will get rid of tied aid through the Billnow that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is content with it, so must Isome political influences on aid giving will remain. That is especially true of debt relief which may be tied to aid, and in that context what has been happening in the European Union is worrying. For example, the Minister and his colleagues will soon have to address the issue of the Ilisu dam. It has received a damning environmental assessment, but we still hear rumours that it could be given the go-ahead because of the need to keep Turkey in the international coalition in the fight against terrorism.
	I am sure that it is important that we retain the support of Turkey, despite its history in countries such as Cyprus and Kurdistan, but it would be remiss of the Government to give approval for the construction of the Ilisu dam to ensure that Turkey stayed on board. The dam would destabilise the middle east and help create a humanitarian crisis in Kurdistan. It would exacerbate the water difficulties in the middle east and even perhaps lead to the possibility of water wars in the area. It would make the Pergau dam look like a puddle.
	Labour Members have spoken a lot about the Pergau dam scandal. They should reflect on what the Ilisu dam could do for their Government. I am sure that they will pressure the Government to reject any export credit guarantees for that dam.
	I come now to the meat of the Bill. We still have some concerns about its definition of sustainable development. I raised this matter on Report earlier this year, and Lord Judd mentioned it in another place. The problem is not so much that the Bill's definition is wrong but that it is not the definition most commonly used internationally.
	I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the Brundtland definition, which states that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. That has been accepted as the standard international definition of sustainable development for many years. The sustainable development strategy of the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the previous Government referred to the Brundtland definition as the international definition.
	The National Assembly of Wales is under a statutory duty for sustainable development, even though the Government of Wales Act 1998 contains no definition of sustainable development. The Assembly has also come across the Brundtland definition, and in its sustainable development strategy states that that definition is the one that is most appropriate and workable.
	The Standing Committee considering the Bill will be able to explore the question of why the Government have chosen the definition of sustainable development that appears in the Bill over the Brundtland definition. It is important to emphasise that the Brundtland definition is not narrowly focused on the environment. Social and economic factors must be taken into account in any decisions that the Secretary of State might make on international aid in the context of sustainable development.
	It would be a good sign if the Government were to adopt the Brundtland definition. It is the most appropriate and telling definition of sustainable development and would give the Secretary of State enough freedom to make her decisions in the light of both environmental factors and of the very important social and economic factors.
	I tabled an amendment on Report to include the Brundtland definition in the Bill, and the then Minister responded that it was too narrowly focused. I do not accept that, and the matter is well worth exploration in Committee.
	We must all bear it in mind that, after warfare, climate change is likely to have the greatest impact on developing countries. The Tyndall centre last year released a report on the countries most affected by climate change, where sustainable development would best be targeted. The report found that the country most likely to be affected by climate change was Afghanistan. The present drought there makes it clear why the report came to that conclusion.
	I come now to the WTO, and I associate myself with the telling observations of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin). She said that Britain should address the question of trade liberalisation and explained how it could be used to eliminate world poverty, and how it is not being used in that way at present.
	I do not doubt that the Government's motives on that matter are clean, and that the White Paper on eliminating world poverty makes it clear that the Government believe that trade liberalisation in international development.
	However, I am a sceptic about the present WTO system; I believe that the WTO is dancing to the tune of corporate America. We have seen a recent example, with the pressure put by the US Government on the producers of the anti-anthrax drug, Cipro, to cut the price that the Americans had to pay to a quarter of what it should be. I contrast that with what happened with anti-HIV drugs in South Africa. Double standards are being applied, and we need to address that within the WTO as a matter of urgency.
	If we look at the history of global trade, we see that the poorest 20 per cent. get 1.1 per cent. of world income, while the richest 20 per cent. get 86 per cent. Although global trade has increased 17-fold over the past 50 years, Latin America's share of it has decreased from 11 to 5 per cent., and Africa's share from 8 to 2 per cent.
	Although trade liberalisation could be said to be working in certain parts of the worldSouth Korea, for example, and the rest of east AsiaAfrica, which all hon. Members tonight have accepted as one of the scars on the face of poverty, has not benefited from world trade. The WTO needs to realise that its current role in promoting economic growth by orienting economies towards boosting exports and attracting investment does not appear to be working for most developing countries, and certainly not for the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa has lost 30 per cent. of its GDP over recent years, rather than gaining anything. Global trade liberalisation works in some places, but not for the world as a whole, and if the WTO is to do anything in Doha over the next few days, it must think about how it can reorient trade liberalisation for the benefit of the poorest countries, not just the richest countries.
	Earlier today we heard a very positive statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in which there was mentionno, I shall be generous and say that there was more than mentionof such issues. However, I am not convinced that they will be properly discussed this weekend. As we have already heard, the draft statement published by the WTO has already been accepted by the secretariat as the final statement. It is a real issue if the secretariat, in consultation with a small number of countries, sets the agenda for the WTO without listening to the whole membership.

Clare Short: I agree that we need to make the trade rules give more opportunities to the poorest countries. However, the WTO is only five years old; it was created after the Uruguay round, and three quarters of its members are developing countries. It does not matter what the secretariat says; if the countries involved do not want a round to be launched on the basis of that document, it will not happen. The WTO is an intergovernmental organisation. Of course the question of the different capacities of different Governments arises, but the organisation gives developing countries the chance to equalise the rules of world trade and make them fairer. That is what is important about what the WTO could deliver.

Simon Thomas: I agree. I accept the principle of working within the WTO, but as her the Secretary of State says, the capacities of different countries are very different. We have already heard about how many members of staff some countries have working for the organisation on a daily basis, and how much influence certain lobbyists can have there. I welcome her comments and I agree with her, but we shall see what happens over the weekend. We shall see whether we arrive at a round that benefits the poorest countries.
	I should like the Government to accept that trade liberalisation is not a goal in itself, but a tool for meeting the aim of worldwide sustainable development. We need a paradigm shift in thinking in the developed world. Perhaps the Secretary of State and her Minister have already made that shift, but at European Union level it has still to be seen.
	We see that most clearly with the subsidies to agriculture, and the difficulties that we have in setting up a new system that would, in my view, benefit not only the farmers in this country but the developing world. To use the word in a different context, perhaps it is time for protectionism for the poor. The launch of the Trade Justice Movement this week in the House was an important step in involving parliamentarians of all parties in the developing discussion of what might be happening in the WTO.
	We must look at our agricultural subsidies and how they exclude trade. We must also look at the general agreement on trade in services and how that can work properly in developing countries. In Mauritania, for example, 20 per cent. of the household budget is needed to pay for water following the privatisation of water services.
	The WTO conference also needs to look at TRIPS, or trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. It is important to support patenting in order to develop new drugs, but it is also important to recognise that generic copies of vital drugs are essential for developing countries. In that context, the potential is there for the global health fund to work almost as a counter balance to TRIPS. As was said earlier, we hope that the global health fund money will become additional to any sources of funding in the Department for International Development.
	I accept that the WTO has been established for only five years, but it has yet to prove that it is working for the world's poorest. One issue that needs to be considered is the hidden subsidies in the west that may not be in the WTO agreements but are in associated international agreements. The most obvious one is Kyoto. The American Government's refusal to implement Kyoto represents, in effect, a massive subsidy to its industry. American exports are not fully priced in that respect because the full implications of Kyoto are not placed on them. America is depending on developing world carbon sinks to keep its exports cheap and its industry subsidised. Although it is not on the agenda in Doha as far as I know, it must be appreciated that the next round, whatever it is, can move forward only if it goes hand-in-hand with other international agreements such as Kyoto. If sustainable development is to mean anything, there has to be full implementation, particularly by the USA, of the Kyoto agreement.
	We must also consider the possibility of a Tobin tax, or some form of international agreement on currency speculation. In that way, international capitalism, along with Governments, can make a contribution to the needs of developing countries.
	Finally, we must keep our promises. We promised in 1970, at the General Assembly of the UN, that we would meet the contribution to international development of 0.7 per cent. of GDP by the middle of the 1970s. It is now the beginning of the 21st century. We reiterated the promise in the real declaration under the local Agenda 21 process. All Governments have a lamentable record on meeting the 0.7 per cent. target. It is true that the Government have recently increased their contribution to international development to about 0.31 per cent. and are on target for a contribution of 0.33 per cent. However, at the present rate of growth, it will take us 50 years to reach 0.7 per cent. I hope to be around in 50 years, although I hope that I will not be a Member of this House then. However, I hope that I do not have to wait 50 years to see us reach the 0.7 per cent. figure. Whether the target is incorporated into the Bill, which might not be acceptable, or whether it is in a strategy introduced by the Government, it must be reached. Let us aspire to be like Luxembourg, and meet that target.

Robert Walter: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I have tended to agree with most of what everybody has said. I agreed with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) until he mentioned the Tobin tax, but as he did not elaborate on it, I did not intervene on him.
	The debate and the Bill highlight the issues at the forefront of many people's minds with regard to Britain's tradition of aidparticularly humanitarian aidwhen it is directed towards the situation in Afghanistan. We have had debates about the situation on other occasions and I do not want to go into it in any detail.
	The Bill is about the longer-term objectives of international development and how we meet our obligations.
	To some extent it is a motherhood and apple pie Bill: there is little in it to which most of us would object. Few peopleapart, perhaps, from some in the odd public barwould be against our providing assistance to developing nations. Few people would be against us doing something to alleviate world poverty. Few Members do not believe that we should make globalisation work for every nationrich and poor.
	The real test is whether the Bill and the activities of the Department for International Development can make a difference. Will the powers enacted under the measure be effective in delivering our objectives? The Bill is really about outcomes. Will the results of the use of our limited resources make a difference to the developing world and to those people in the world to whom we have an obligation?
	I am not alone in thinking that the long-term answer to poverty alleviation rests with trade liberalisation. I was impressed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), in which she referred to the WTO talks in Doha and to the effort that we must make to put pressure on our WTO partners to bring about trade liberalisation. That pressure must be exerted especially on our partners in the European Union and the United States

Clare Short: And Japan.

Robert Walter: And, indeed, in Japan, as the Secretary of State has just pointed out. We had better not get into a debate on how the rice market affects Japan.
	The real opportunity for much of the developing world lies in agricultural production. Developing countries need to be able to market their produce globally without being subject to the protectionism erected by the industrialised world where other things could be produced much more effectively. We should all be dedicated to that.
	In the UK, we traditionally believe that we have an obligation to equip the developing world with the capital and resources to supply those global markets. We have always seen it as our role to provide education and expertise to developing economies, so it is ironic that the Department devoted to poverty alleviationthe House must forgive my slight criticism on one pointshould have imposed conditions on one of the essential vehicles for the delivery of that assistance, thereby causing it to turn its back on key sectors of industry in the developing world. I was disappointed by the Secretary of State's response to my intervention about the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
	The Commonwealth Development Corporation, whose name does not appear in the Bill, should be key to the delivery of the Bill's objectives. Alas, I believe that the corporation has turned its back on that important agriculture sector in the developing world. Before it is too latebefore the Bill leaves the House and receives its Royal Assentwe should re-dedicate the corporation to a key role in meeting our international development objectives.
	Like many colleagues, I have been fortunate enough on several occasions during my four and half years as a Member of this place to visit developing countries under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I have visited countries in Africa and Asia, and this year I was fortunate enough to visit Belize and Jamaica. Some of my comments about DFID and the Commonwealth Development Corporation are based on my experience on those visits.
	The history of the CDC goes right back to 1948 and the Colonial Development Corporation. It was renamed the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the mid-1960s. In 1997, its new mandate was to invest in sustainable and socially responsible projects that were also profitable. There is no criticism of that or any objection to it. The idea of the changes was simply to raise capital from the private sector. The Secretary of State alluded to that in her response to my intervention. However, the reality is that the management team at the CDC seems to have different objectives.
	Many of the CDC's assets are loans in Africa and developing countries elsewhere in farms and forests. They were in long-term, labour-intensive agricultural projects run by local experts, but the trouble is that agriculture does not produce the kind of returns that emerging market funds are looking for. It produces returns of at best 8, 9 or 10 per cent. There are many emerging market funds based in the City of London that could return 20 per cent. or more, and that seems to be what the CDC now aspires to be. Therefore, many agricultural projects are going; many are up for sale. I saw one in Belize this summer. The Del Oro citrus project, which was put together and funded by the CDC, is now up for sale, but there are no buyers. The despair among the citrus growers in that region has to be seen to be believed. They feel that the CDC, Britain and DFID are turning their backs on them.
	Offices of the CDC have been closed. When I asked about the CDC in Jamaica, I was told that the regional office had moved to Miamithat well-known Commonwealth country, and of course in a developing nation. I do not believe that the CDC's role is to be an emerging market fund alongside all the other emerging market funds. It is a genuine development bank, a development corporation that can take equity stakes in Commonwealth and other countries. Its objectives have been widened. That is part of what the objectives of the Department for International Development should beusing CDC as a vehicle.
	I believe that the CDC is a key weapon in Britain's armoury, not just another investment bank. It now sits with its 2 billion budget somewhat uneasily

Clare Short: One billion.

Robert Walter: The Secretary of State corrects me. I will take her word for that.
	Of course the CDC's 1 billion should not be spent just on poverty alleviation, but poverty alleviation seems to be far distant from its objectives now. I see it as a publicly funded commercial enterprise that seeks returns with no demonstrable impact on poverty. That is uncomfortable.
	Many CDC offices are being closed. The corporation's commitment to Africa certainly seems to be diminishing. Its chairman, Lord Cairns, insists that it can achieve its mission of realising attractive returns to shareholders. That will also have an effect of assisting social development. Yet the CDC's new investments are in urban services for a rich minority and rural areas are being ignored, although they are where 85 per cent. of the poverty that we seek to alleviate is found.
	Britain's international development aims represent a force for good in the world, which is why the Bill is supported on both sides of the House. That cross-party consensus is good and right, but the Bill is not beyond improvement, and we should enhance the CDC's role and return it to its original objectiveto aid DFID in delivering its goals.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate. I feel privileged to follow so many thoughtful and positive contributions.
	I have not always agreed with many things that the Secretary of State has said over the yearsour politics are very differentbut I have observed her closely in the five years that she has held her current post, and she has shown obvious dedication to the job. I commend her on that and on the determination that she is showing to try to alleviate poverty and to deal with many of the disastrous events in the world today. We have a duty, as a civilised nation, to do everything that we can to alleviate catastrophes, wherever they may occur in the world and whoever is affected. I am pleased that work is being done to further that aim.
	I want to respond to the comments by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge); I certainly respect much of what she has said. However, I do not believe that the Conservative party has experienced a tremendous conversion to believing in helping the poor and in changing things to better the lives of people around the worldit has always held that view. Of course, 15 or 20 years ago things were very different. We were living in a different world, there was a cold war, and the west had economic difficulties. Many of those problems have been resolved, perhaps only to be replaced by new ones. Nevertheless, it has to be remembered that, 15 or 20 years ago, it was not quite so easy for countries such as ours to respond in the more positive way that economic prosperity has given us the opportunity to do, and I ask the hon. Lady to consider that in future debates on this topic.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made a very valid point about the money that we pay towards the EU and the fact that so much is lost. I hope that the Government will reconsider those arrangements. I honestly believe that it is better for the Government to decide how to spend overseas aid, rather than for the money necessarily to go via the EU; we know that a lot of money is wasted.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), made important and valid points about the persecution of religious minorities, and I urge the Secretary of State to consider that issue as well.
	The Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), is not in the Chamber now, but I commend her on her very thoughtful and sincere remarks. I am impressed by her compassion, and I am proud to speak in support of much of what she said this evening. I join her in broadly welcoming the spirit of the Bill, but I have several important reservations and I should like to outline them this evening.
	Our country has a long record of giving aid and taking an active and productive role in international development. We should be proud of that and seek to continue it. We should wholeheartedly subscribe to the principle of helping those who are trying to escape poverty and who will benefit from a helping hand to take them out of the trap that prevents them from being able to help themselves. Freedom brings prosperity. Aid is vital to that, but we need also to promote freedom.
	The previous Conservative Government formed the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Although not directly relevant to the Bill, I am proud to have played a part in helping to promote the ideas of freedom and democracy around the world in my role as chairman of the International Young Democrat Union and previously as co-ordinator for the freedom training programme, in conjunction with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, working in many countriesin particular Africa, eastern Europe, Latin America and, most recently, the Caribbean. That was a positive achievement by the Government, and it attracted all-party support. The right hon. Sir Geoffrey Pattie was instrumental in that, along with his counterparts in other parties.
	A political system can make a big difference, as can an economic system. Aid is not simply the answer; other things need to happen for a country to prosper and for people to have opportunities. The free market economy, which almost all hon. Members accept, is the way forward for developing countries. Trade liberalisation is vital. We must work with all developing countries to help them and teach them the ways of the free market.
	The Bill fails to acknowledge deeper issues that relate to corruption and the encouragement of good governance, which make it ambiguous and too narrow. The lack of an attempt to define poverty is the most striking flaw. I freely admit that I was not a Member when the first version was introduced in the previous Session, but I know that many hon. Members rightly questioned that omission. I shall not repeat those arguments at length, but it is important to observe the Government's inconsistency.
	The Government feel competent enough to give a precise definition of development assistance and a broad definition of sustainable development, but are unable to define poverty, on which everything else hinges. Indeed, clause 1(1) is clear in stating that the Secretary of State may provide development assistance if that is
	likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
	That leaves the right hon. Lady with a blank cheque. The Bill guides her on how she may provide assistance, but the decision on whether to do so or not is based entirely on what she deems to qualify as poverty.
	In theory, poverty could be anything from the unthinkable levels of starvation and deprivation suffered by approximately 1.2 billion people around the world who are forced to survive on less than $1 a day, to countries where the perceived standard of living, based merely on economic indicators, is deemed to be poor. With no clear boundaries, Governments may find themselves in troubled waters, unable to justify the point at which the line must be drawn.
	I come now to a different but no less important aspect of the debate. The Bill significantly lacks measures to guarantee that any assistance will genuinely help those who most need it, and will not be diverted to those who may abuse it. The Government have consistently promised to be tough on corruption, and I commend them for thatyet, as far as I can see, the Bill contains no acknowledgement of the possibility of bribery and corruption, let alone any measures to tackle it. Furthermore, the Bill fails to focus on the importance of promoting good governance. It touches on the provision of assistance incorporating technical aid, particularly in the form of know-how, but it does not explicitly recognise the link that undoubtedly exists between good governance and positive change.
	If, through our aid packages, we do not promote the ideas of good governance, we will have failed. We may have offered a short-term solution to the pressing problems caused by a natural disaster or a conflict, but we will not have delivered any lasting benefit. The International Development Committee reported last April that
	poor governance and weak institutions
	are the primary cause of corruption, and said that
	corruption further undermines development and growth and constitutes a serious threat to attempts to eliminate poverty.
	It went on to say that
	the elimination of corruption should be central to a responsible development strategy.
	Yet the Bill makes no mention of the elimination of corruption. As I said, it does not even acknowledge the problem.

Clare Short: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was present for earlier speeches. There is no doubt that dealing with corruption and ensuring effective governance are crucial to development. The Bill gives the Government the flexibility to tackle corruption, develop effective governance, improve public services and try to resolve conflict. He is misleading us by suggesting that the Bill is not intended to deal with corruption, and I am surprised that he persists with that false analysis.

Andrew Rosindell: I am sure that much more can be discussed in Committee. My speech is intended to encourage the Government to improve the Bill, which, as I have already said, I very much support, as do the Opposition. I look forward to the Committee proceedings, and I hope that the Government will consider improvements and stronger measures.
	When the Bill was first presented to the House, the Secretary of State rejected the notion of including in it the OECD convention on combating bribery because of a lack of time. There is no general election looming now, so the Government do not have an excuse. Let us hope that the matter can be reconsidered in Committee.
	The Bill presents the Government with an ideal opportunity to prove that they are serious about tackling corruption. To be serious, they must explicitly recognise, from the outset, that corruption is part of the problem, and where it exists it will only be worsened by the unconditional giving of material aid. All the evidence presented to the Select Committee indicated that it is commonplace for countries in receipt of material aid to waste up to 70 per cent. of resources through petty corruption because bureaucrats on exceedingly low pay have no choice but to resort to corrupt practices to provide for their families. That corruption, in turn, hurts the poorest the most.
	When World Bank staff estimate that between 20 and 30 per cent. of development funds to Indonesia have been systematically diverted, and organisations such as Transparency International discover that the poor in countries such as Bangladesh have to make corrupt payments to receive health care and education, we know that there is a major problem that must not be ignored. When giving evidence to the International Development Committee, the Secretary of State admitted:
	you cannot do development without dealing with corruption if you are operating in countries that have got corruption problems.
	I entirely agree with that very clear statement. Sadly, it does not appear to be fully reflected in the Bill, but I look forward to that happening.
	My final comments relate to the attitude taken towards the British overseas territories. We should not treat our overseas territories differently from any other part of the United Kingdom. I accept that the Bill is well intentioned and I support it, but I am concerned that we are treating our overseas territories differently. We should not do so. A disaster in, say, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Montserrat, St. Helena or the Pitcairn Islands should be treated in exactly the same way as we would respond to a disaster in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland. However, the Bill, while removing the condition of development aid being provided to reduce poverty, continues to refer to overseas territories as though they were foreign territories. They are not. They are British, and rightly so.

Tony Baldry: I think that my hon. Friend might be misleading himself. The overseas territories are small territories which for various reasons have not become independent, or have not wanted to. The money given under the Bill and previous legislation is not for emergency or humanitarian relief; it is given to ensure that they acquire the infrastructure and development they need to build themselves up; otherwise, they would face considerable difficulties.

Andrew Rosindell: I accept that point. I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. However, I feel strongly that citizens of our overseas territories should be made to feel that they are as British as the rest of us.

Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Rosindell: I am about to finish my speech, but I will give way.

Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I just wanted to say that I entirely agree with him.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the hon. Lady.
	Although I would like to say more, I am anxious that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) should have the opportunity to speak. I conclude by saying that it is only right that our primary focus should be on how we can help those who are in need of our assistance. However, that help must tackle the deeper issues, or it might be of no help at all.

Angela Watkinson: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the framework of our international development policy. The outcome of the Bill will be vital to the 1.2 billion people throughout the world who live in extreme povertythat is, surviving on less than $1 a day.
	During the 1990s, one third of the world's children suffered from malnutrition. Although there was a worldwide reduction of 17 per cent. in that figure, it fell far short of the 50 per cent. target, whereas in sub-Saharan Africa the absolute number of malnourished children actually increased. The under-five mortality rate in low-income countries in 1999 was 116 children per 1,000 born, compared with only five per 1,000 in high-income countries. The overall situation has been made much worse by the events in America on 11 September and their adverse effect on economic growth in developing countries. Up to 10 million more people now face poverty in 2002.
	We need to achieve the targets set at the G7 Finance Ministers meeting in Palermo in 2001. Those targets include progress towards gender equality, especially in terms of education for girls, by 2005; a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of people living in extreme povertyI understand that some progress has been made in that respect; universal primary education in all countries; and access to reproductive health services through primary care. At this point, let me reassure the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who was concerned that those funds are concentrated on contraception. In fact, they are concentrated on ensuring safer childbirth and on prenatal and antenatal services for women.
	With less than 15 years to go, the prospects for success in some areas are improving but, on present trends, none of the goals in health or education is likely to be achieved globally. Bearing that in mind, I support the broad thrust of the Bill, which will become the new basis for United Kingdom provision of overseas assistance. There are some issues of concern, which I almost hesitate to mention, given the consensual debate that we have had this evening. However, none are insuperable, and I hope that there will be an opportunity to address them in Committee.
	The Bill seeks to clarify the purposes for which development assistance is provided; in other words, it should help to reduce poverty, and it widens the means to do so. However, it does not define poverty, which is a subjective term and requires explanation. It gives the Government powers to provide humanitarian relief, although no time scale is given, and there is no requirement for such assistance to contribute specifically to poverty reduction. It is not just the quantity of aid that matters, but its effectiveness. We must ensure that it reaches the people for whom it is intended. The method of distribution is vital, and charities and non-governmental organisations could play a much greater role in development. As we strive to increase our giving, we must ensure that food aid intended for starving civilians is not commandeered to feed an army. Financial aid should never be allowed to find its way into Swiss bank accounts or be invested in international property portfolios.
	We must encourage good governance in developing countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke powerfully about that. We should not increase aid to countries where there is a deterioration in human rights or an increase in military spending. I was pleased that the Secretary of State spoke about improvements and progress in China, where coercive birth control is causing women distress. I welcome the HIPC initiative, but its delivery is taking too long. I hope that we will look more closely at the financial progress of individual countries and the root causes of problems in indebted countries to give them an opportunity to achieve genuine sustainable development, and so break the link between dependency and debt.
	There is a close link between debt relief and corruption. The OECD's convention on combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions was signed in December 1997, yet still awaits ratification. Four years on, the United Kingdom lags way down the list of countries that have promised to introduce that legislation. I urge the Government to make time to deal with that matter; perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment on that when he responds to our debate.
	My main concern is the waste and mismanagement of the EU aid budget, which has still not been tackled, even though the agency has been called the worst in the world. Member states should be able to deliver more aid bilaterally and should certainly do so more effectively. EU aid programmes have been found to have serious weaknesses and shortcomings. In the past five years, the average delay in the disbursement of committed funds has increased from three years to four and a half years. It is a scandal that people are suffering for any longer than is necessary because of bureaucracy or inefficiency in the EU. Between 25 and 30 per cent. of the Department's budget is spent by the European Community, but we have little control over its spending decisions. If we did have more control over those decisions, I wonder whether the Department would have made different priority decisions about where aid is spent, for example, in India.
	This year, our spending amounted to 728 million. Are any measures in place to determine what percentage of that money has been spent effectively? Or do we have to wait another five years before measures are in place to find out that there has been no improvement in systems? Between 1979 and 1997, the average UK net overseas development assistance, as a percentage of gross national product, was 0.32 per cent. Although that has since dropped to 0.26 per cent., I note that our target increase for 200304 is 0.33 per cent. We all look forward to reaching the 0.7 per cent. target. It is our duty, as a rich country, to achieve it.

Nick Hawkins: There has been much all-party agreement during the debate. I therefore wind up the debate for the official Opposition with some satisfaction. The House of Commons is often at its best when thoughtful speeches tackle genuine issues in measures such as the Bill. The Secretary of State will agree that there was much common ground between her opening speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman).
	The opening speeches were followed by impressive contributions from hon. Members of all parties. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who has been involved with international development for a long time, began with a generous and deserved tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. However, he was uncharacteristically and unfairly critical of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) when he mentioned my hon. Friend's contribution in a debate before the general election. My hon. Friend was never mean-minded, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. I know that the Under-Secretary will concede that the Opposition's approach to the Bill has not changed. When the measure was debated in the previous Parliament, we welcomed it but made two or three points that my hon. Friends have highlighted again today.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) introduced a note of party political controversy to the debate. Nevertheless, in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), she said that she agreed with some of his points.
	The House is familiar with well observed, thorough and detailed contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who chairs the International Development Committee. In paying tribute to him and his work, it would be remiss if I did not mention the important work of the previous Chairman. I note that the Secretary of State nods. Bowen Wells, the former Member for Hertford and Stortford, chaired the Select Committee superbly and a great deal of his work will be reflected in our work in Standing Committee. Tribute was properly paid to him at this morning's annual general meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury spoke of his experience on a recent visit to Burkina Faso. He said that he was worried that the Bill did not cover EU contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) also made that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury rightly pointed out that malaria, HIV/AIDS and TB kill 5 million people a year and that the global health fund must be made to work.
	The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) talked about his work on the International Development Committee and his recent visit to Cambodia. He rightly said that the Department's work increases day by day, week by week, month by month and year by year. He made the interesting point that the provision of aid does not stop rich terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. He also made valuable points about the recruitment of young Muslims by terrorists such as the al-Qaeda network.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who has a long-standing interest in international development, referred to the predictions that he made in the debate on the White Paper in May. He pointed out with sadness how quickly his dire warningthat poverty breeds fundamentalism, which breeds terrorismhad been realised.
	My hon. Friend cited the Secretary of State's acceptance of the fact that the world's poorest people often come from religious minorities. I think that the whole House was grateful to my hon. Friend for the examples that he gave in relation to the plight of the Montagnard people in Vietnam, the Coptic Christians in Egypt and minorities in Burma. All hon. Members will be concerned about the persecution of those people.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) made a good speech, which, I should tell her, has been praised by a number of subsequent contributors while she has been out of the Chamber. She spoke of her concerns about tied aid and about the Doha talks.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), in a characteristically thoughtful contribution to the debate, said that people in Northern Ireland give more per capita to charitable good causes overseas than people in other parts of the United Kingdom. He mentioned his meeting earlier today with a delegation from the Philippines, and the fact that the people of Mindanao are once again vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.
	The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) welcomed the cross-party support for the Bill and paid a well-deserved tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. He said that he wanted aid to be focused on the world's very poorest people, and stressed his own constituency links with William Wilberforce.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made a detailed speech in which he pointed out that he was having a second bite at the cherry on this Bill, as he had spoken in the Second Reading debate of its predecessor, which failed because of the general election. He said that he was speaking on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, so one might say that he was speaking for all the Celts in this debate. He spoke about the Brundtland definition and the World Trade Organisation, and said that he wanted the whole of the Department for International Development's budget to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. He also talked about what has been called the Tobin tax, but he may not have been aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House think that that should be rechristened in honour of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who supported it earlier today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), in his thoughtful and well-argued speech, referred to the Bill as motherhood and apple pie. He showed his great expertise and knowledge of the subject, especially in voicing his concern that the Bill does not fully reflect the work done by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. He also talked about what he had seen on visits to Belize and Jamaica earlier this year.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Romford talked about the difficulties in the very different world of 15 to 20 years ago. He broadly welcomed the spirit of the Bill, and described the work in which he has personally been involved with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the International Young Democrat Union. He stressed his concerns about the overseas territories, which the Secretary of State will know that Conservative Front Bench Members share. We shall return to them in Committee, as we shall to my hon. Friend's concern about implementing the provisions against bribery and corruption. We have consistently stressed that concern here and in another place, and we shall undoubtedly return to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster spoke of her concern about the waste and mismanagement of the European Union aid budget.
	This has been an important and good debate on both sides of the House, on a very important Bill. We welcome the Bill, but we must bear it in mind that the background to all these overseas aid issues is that, despite decades of assistance from so many bodies in the developed world, most of Africa and much of Latin America, Asia and the middle east are, tragically, economically worse off today than they were 20 years ago. In the late 1990s, the United Nations released figures showing that 70 poor countries were worse off than they had been in 1980, and that 43 were worse off than they had been in 1970, despite decades of aid spending.
	We hope that this consolidation of previous legislation will give the Department for International Development the opportunity to help to reverse that trend. All hon. Members recognise that, too often, aid programmes have brought neither material prosperity nor political stability to many regions. That is why Conservative Members have been particularly concerned about the measures in the Bill that deal with good governance. That is another matter to which we shall return in Committee.
	This is a good Bill, but it can be improved in Committee if the Government will take on board the relatively small but important improvements that we have repeatedly stressed. Although the Government did not accept them before the general election, we hope that they will finally do so now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden rightly said, the Bill is very good but it could be made even better with a few changes, as we have suggested.

Hilary Benn: We have had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, to which many right hon. and hon. Members have contributed. It has just been summed up by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) with his characteristic skill. May I say to him and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that I very much welcome the spirit of their remarks. As the hon. Lady said, we have a common goal; that has been demonstrated in speeches from both sides of the Chamber.
	The hon. Lady asked how the principles established in the Bill will be expressed in joined-up government. We had a good illustration of that earlier today when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement about Doha. Those who were in the Chamber to listen to it will have heard her speak almost exclusively about Doha's potential to make a difference to developing countries.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) referred, all in different ways, to the potential power of trade to make a difference, and I very much endorse those remarks. I particularly endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill and others about developing countries' capacity to engage in the process. We must be clear that the World Trade Organisation is a body of sovereign Governments and we should not talk down the capacity, in a true sense, of developing countries to engage in that process and ultimately to shape it as they want. My Department is trying to assist them in that process.
	The hon. Member for Meriden asked whether the Bill would adversely affect our work on good governance, which has been one of the themes of the debate, or on issues such as efficient revenue collection. I take this opportunity to reassure her that that will not be the case. Both of those will be supported and permitted.
	I welcome the hon. Lady's commitment, on behalf of her party, on tied aid. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is now reassured on that question. As she asked me to repeat the remarks of my distinguished predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), let me say that the Government believe that, under the Bill, a policy of tying aid would not be sustainable.

Clare Short: Or legal.

Hilary Benn: Or, indeed, legal. Any future Secretary of State who tried to act illegally would be subject to the powers of the courts. We think that that offers sufficient protection.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) spoke with his characteristic depth of knowledge about disability. He also mentioned maternal mortality. I had a chance to look at that subject at first hand last week when I was in Malawi, where I had the opportunity to visit a safe motherhood project that the Department is supporting. It is a practical, down-to-earth project that is trying to encourage discussion within the community about the importance of getting women experiencing difficulty in labour to specialist help as quickly as possible. It includes talking to the ambulance service and dispatchers about the need to prioritise calls on behalf of women who find themselves in that position.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the Ilisu dam. They will both be aware that that is an export credit guarantee issue and is not covered by the Bill, but I shall undertake to convey to the Minister responsible their request for further information.
	A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), discussed the effectiveness of European Union aid. Indeed, that has been a theme of the debate. The Bill covers only the European development fund element of European spending, but I think that the whole House is agreed on the need to improve further the effectiveness and the poverty focus of EC development programmes.
	As we have said on various occasionsmy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been particularly vigorous in pressing this point, as has the Select Committee on International Developmentthe scale and the scope of the EC's development aid budget means that it should have enormous potential. I think that all hon. Members will agree that it has failed to fulfil that potential, which is why the current reform programme has to succeed.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) did not disturb the bipartisan spirit of our debate. Indeed, I think that he added to it when he said that poverty reduction should concern the conservative philosophy as much as it should other political philosophies represented in our society. I very much welcome his statement and the way in which he said it, because I think that he was absolutely right.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of human rights. I undertake to look into the three specific cases that he identified: Vietnam, Egypt and Burma. I should add, however, that Vietnam has been able to make significant progress in poverty reduction. He was generous enough to acknowledge the support that we are already giving Burma. However, as a Government, in making decisions we can and do distinguish between the policies of a particular Government and the needs of people whoas I am sure all hon. Members will agreeshould not suffer because of the Government under whom they happen to live or whom, in the case of Burma, they have had no part in choosing.
	The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Ceredigion mentioned the devolved aspects of the legislation. The Northern Ireland Administration and the Welsh Assembly both recognise that international development is a reserved matter. The Northern Ireland Administration is not accountable for any of the statutory bodies listed in schedule 1although I notice that the Wales tourist board is so listed. However, the Bill makes provision for consultation with the devolved Administrations before we enter into any arrangements with either Welsh or Northern Irish statutory bodies. I hope that that offers some reassurance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) said that John Vereker, the permanent secretary at the Department for International Development, is one of his constituents. I am glad that he did so because, as hon. Members may be aware, John Vereker will be moving on to take up new duties before the end of the year. This debate therefore gives me the opportunity not only on my own behalf, but probably more significantly on behalf of my right hon. Friendwho has worked very closely with him since she became Secretary of State in 1997to thank him for the distinguished contribution that he has made in the past eight years to the work of the Department and to international development more broadly. In the short time that I have been a Minister in the Department, I have certainly valued his enormous depth of knowledge, his intellect and the way in which he conducts himself. I am sure that the whole House would like to wish him all the very best in the new duties to which he will be moving.
	The issue of sustainable development was raised in this debate, and it was debated at some length in the Bill's previous incarnation. I think that we have to ensure that the concept is not captured either by those who take an entirely economic view of sustainable development or by those who see it principally as an environmental concernsomething that I learned forcefully when I was in Indonesia, where the economics of sustainable livelihoods in a forest community are about trying to balance those two sometimes competing demands. I think that clause 1(3) is not so much a definition as a safeguard against the narrowing of that concept by anyone who has a particular definition favouring one concept or the other.
	The hon. Members for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)in an east London-Essex allianceurged us to examine the definition of poverty. I am not sure how much would be gained by entering into a long debatealthough I should be happy to do so in Committeeon precisely how we define poverty. I think that the most important consideration is that the international community has defined the goals of poverty reduction that it wishes to reach and that it wishes to work on by means of both the millennium development goals and the international development targets.
	Our debate this evening, if not overshadowed by the events of 11 September, has been very much influenced by themand that is precisely as it should be, because we have all had a lot of thinking to do in the last few weeks, and a great deal to learn. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West made the point when he spoke of the importance of development education.
	One of the most important lessons of that experience is directly relevant to the Bill. It is simply this: a world scarred by poverty, injustice and inequality will never be a safe world. If the case for what the Bill seeks to achieve was strong before 11 September, as indeed it was, it is much stronger now.
	When the individuals who took up Osama bin Laden's invocation to go and kill Americans, picking as their target the symbol of the international financial systemthe twin towersthey in fact killed people from 62 countries across the world. In that respect, I think that the twin towers symbolise something else that is just as significant: the extent to which this very small and fragile world of ours is now more interdependent and interlinked than it has been at any time in its history.
	This is a world in which what happens in one country affects those who live in another. For example, conflict in Afghanistan results in refugees in Leeds, Birmingham and other cities of the United Kingdom. It is a world in which events that occur in one country are instantly seen by those of us living in other countries, because of the power of television to shrink the globe. I believe that it is a world in which, as a result of all those things, we have a responsibility for each other.
	For all the reasons that I have given, international development can no longer be regarded as some kind of good-hearted add-on to real politics. It is now the very heart of political debate and political argument, not least because of my right hon. Friend's efforts to make it so, and the way in which she has put the case over the past four years. The moral case, to which many Members have referred, is now reinforced by the political case.
	The hon. Member for Banbury hit the nail on the head when he said that we have an unprecedented opportunity. I believe that passionately, because the world is now more alive to these issues. The world has been forced to be more aware, and the world must now respond to that greater awareness by making decisions that will make a real difference.
	Having entered the 21st century with half the world living on less than $2 a day and one in five of our fellow men and women living on less than $1 a day, we simply cannot afford to leave it with such high levels of poverty. That is why the reduction of poverty, which is what the Bill is about, must be our overriding aim.
	The level of aid matters enormously, of course. It is a source of pride that the UK's development aid budget is increasing, and that my right hon. Friend will have been responsible for delivering a 45 per cent. real-terms increase between 1997 and 200304, when the budget will reach 3.6 billionthe highest development aid budget in the history of the United Kingdom.
	A number of Members asked how we would move towards the 0.7 per cent. target. I welcome all their comments, and will ensure that they are passed on to the Chancellor of the Exchequerwho, I am sure, will read them with great interest.
	The UK's role in debt relief has delivered, for 23 of the world's poorest countries, the potential of $53 billion of debt reduction. In this year alone, that is freeing $1.7 billion that would otherwise have been spent on interest payments but can now be spent on, for instance, education and health.
	The Bill will provide a legal framework that will support our development assistance by ensuring that the reduction of poverty is at the centre of politics in this country and in the world. I think that the House can be truly proud of what we have been able to achieve together so far. Progress has been made: we must acknowledge that, not least because it enables us to redouble our efforts to make further progress. What we have done is a start, but it is what we have yet to do that will really make a difference.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the International Development Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of this Act;
	(b) any sums required by him for fulfilling any guarantee given under this Act;
	(c) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act; and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. [Mr. McNulty.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	  
	Political and Social Clubs

Brian Iddon: Members of political clubs, social clubs and other clubs in my constituency have expressed concern about their financial viability. This petition comes from the five remaining Labour clubs in my constituency; they are the Farnworth and Kearsley Labour Club, the Derby Ward Labour Club, the Rumworth Labour Club and Institute Ltd., the Dixon Green Labour club, and the Bradford Ward Labour Club and Institute. Unfortunately, Little Lever Labour Club closed recently because of financial problems. The petition of members of non-profit-making members' clubs in south-east Bolton
	Declares that recommendation 70 of the Report of the Gambling Review Body chaired by Sir Alan Budd, which was presented to the House on 17th July 2001, recommends that jackpot machines should be removed from private clubs; and that this recommendation will, if enacted, place non-profit making members' clubs under such financial pressure that they may be forced to close.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons not pass any legislation which will entail the removal of jackpot machines from non-profit making members' clubs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

EQUAL VALUE PAY CLAIMS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. McNulty.]

Andy Burnham: The Equal Pay Act 1970 is a landmark piece of legislation and one of the most progressive measures passed in the House in the last century. It enshrines in law a simple moral principle: that all human beings should be treated the same on the basis of their merits and rewarded on the quality of their work alone. I am proud of the fact that it was the Labour party in government that passed that principle into law and of how it has helped to build a fairer and more equal society in Britain.
	Today the principle is taken for granted, but it was not always thus. A measure of how times have moved on and of the success of the Act in changing attitudes and practices is that any young person entering the labour market today would find it almost unthinkable that there was a time when that principle was not the norm. People have come to understand both the social and the business case in respect of women's incomes over their lifetimes. If employers do not pay women fairly, it is more difficult for them to retain and motivate their staff. If women receive unequal pay, they are less able to make provision for their old age through pensions and savings and therefore more likely to be dependent on the state.
	In 1970, however, the practices in setting pay belonged to a different era. That was perhaps nowhere better illustrated than in the coal mining industry. One of the biggest claims brought under the Equal Pay Act 1970if not the biggestwas initiated by the National Union of Mineworkers on behalf of women canteen workers and cleaning staff at collieries across the country. Soon after the Act was introduced in 1973, two canteen workers brought a successful equal pay claim against the National Coal Board. On the back of that, many canteen workers were encouraged to submit similar claims.
	It was not until 1983 that the possibility of securing redress for women working throughout the mining industry really opened up, with a ruling from the European Court of Justice that had to be incorporated in British law. It extended the scope of the Act to cover equal pay for work of equal value. Between December 1985 and April 1988, nearly 1,300 canteen workers and cleaning staff from 47 different establishments across the country submitted equal value claims, comparing their work to that of 150 male colleagues who were employed either as clerical workers or surface mine workers, including bath attendants, laundry workers and maintenance staff.
	Many of the claimants worked at pits in my constituency, including Parsonage and Woodend in Leigh, Bickershaw and Golborne, and also at Anderton House in Lowton, the north-west regional headquarters of the National Coal Board. Others worked at nearby Parkside colliery in Newton-le-Willows, Astley Green, Chanters, Mossley Common and Maines.

John Mann: In addition to the cases cited by my hon. Friend, I gathered information about 124 others last week as a result of meetings that I held in my constituency. I note that no Conservative Member is present for the debate. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking my hon. Friend the Minister to consider all those cases, so that the problems inherited by the coal industry can be sorted out once and for all? In that way, we can look forward to the future use of coal and the development of our areas, rather than having our surgeries full of cases from the past that have not been remedied yet.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I look forward to meeting the coach-load of people from Bassetlaw who will come down to the House to join us in raising this matter.
	It was not until May 1996 that the breakthrough came, when the House of Lords ruled in favour of the claimants and the NUM. The Lords rejected British Coal's argument that the male comparators were not valid because of the lack of standard terms and conditions across the industry.
	Because the Equal Pay Act 1970 requires that claims be pursued by individuals, however, it was expected that each case would have to be referred back to an industrial tribunal. That process would have been extremely time consuming and bureaucratic, and an agreement was reached between the union and the Labour Government on a compensation package.
	According to the terms of that package, women who had lodged valid claims would receive 1,000 for each year of full-time work, and part-time workers would receive a pro rata payment. As a result, more than 1,000 women have received substantial payments, many of them in the region of 10,000.
	It took 16 years from start to finish to resolve the matter, but a combination of the efforts of the individual claimants, the NUM and Labour in government succeeded in using the 1970 Act to bring redress to almost 1,300 underpaid women. That is worth celebrating, but my purpose in this debate is to raise the issue of the estimated 2,600 womenalmost twice the number who have so far received redresswho, although they worked in the same places, did the same jobs and were paid the same money, did not receive anything.

Joan Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that people from Stoke-on-Trent and the north Staffordshire coalfield, and from mining areas all over the country, also fall into the category of those who have received no redress in this matter?

Andy Burnham: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. I am not talking only about people working in the Lancashire coalfield. Many hon. Members present tonight represent constituencies in the east midlands and the coalfield areas of Yorkshire.

Rachel Squire: And Scotland.

Andy Burnham: Yes. In recent weeks I have been contacted by about 30 people who fall into the category of those who have received nothing. The reasons for that are many and various. Some registered claims that were rejected at industrial tribunal, often because of the time limit set down by the 1970 Act. Some claimants registered for equal pay claims in the 1970s, and had assumed that their names would carry over automatically to any later claims. Some peopleespecially the more elderlyonly found out last year that they were eligible to make a claim at all.
	To show how the circumstances of each individual vary, and to explain why I do not think that many people can be blamed for failing to lodge a claim, I shall spend some time recording the working experiences of three constituents who have contacted me. It is important that the House should have a clear idea of the difficult nature of the work that they undertook, and of the pay that they received.
	My constituent Brenda Worsfold worked at Parsonage colliery between 1978 and 1981, at Bickershaw colliery between 1981 and 1985, and at both pits between 1990 and 1992. In her final job, she would rise at a quarter to five, travel to work on her own, open up the kitchen and begin to provide breakfast, and then lunch, for 30 to 40 surface workers. Mrs. Worsfold was paid 66.21 for 20 hours' work a week. She remembers signing a form to allow her name to go forward, but no record of that could be found.
	Mrs. Margaret Hughes of Lowton worked as a cleaner at Anderton house, Lowton, for 22 years between 1966 and 1988. When she was made redundant, she was receiving about 38 a week for 15 hours' work a week. Because of the number of hours that she and other colleagues worked, they received redundancy packages far inferior to those given to the men employed at Anderton House when it was closed. A case was brought to an industrial tribunal, but it fell because of the delay in registering the claim.
	Mrs. Alice Kelly of Golborne worked in the canteen at Parkside and Golborne collieries from 1973 to 1983. She worked 40 hours a week, often starting at 5.30am passing her husband in the hallway as he came in from the night shift. She was never paid more than 100 a week. She left work to look after her husband full-time because, like so many other miners, he had succumbed to ill health, so she was no longer at work when people were being encouraged to submit equal value claims. It was not until last year that Mrs. Kelly heard about the possibility of making such a claim.
	Although 1,300 people have made claimsmake no mistake, that is very welcome2,600 women have not. For every three people working alongside each other in a colliery canteen, one has received up to 10,000 while two others have received nothing. It is a cruel irony that legislation intended to secure fair and equal treatment for all people has led to such unfairness and unequal treatment.
	In many cases, it was the older people who had been working the longest and had just retired, like my constituent Mrs. Kelly, who received nothing. Nearly all the people who have contacted me have been at pains to stress that those were difficult times, and the backdrop to the claims being pursued was one of great upheaval in the British mining industryand, by extension, in communities such as ours which were dependent on that industry. For that reason, nobody can be surprised that many valid claims could not be lodged within the time limits laid down in the Act.
	In considering how to move things forward, it is important to keep those exceptional circumstances in mind. In my constituency at least, the mining industry was coming to an end. The establishments and the jobs in question no longer exist. That brings me to my central point. The rights and wrongs of the issue will continue to be raked over, but it all boils down to the inadequacy of the Equal Pay Act as a mechanism for providing redress to a whole group of people throughout an entire industry who were underpaid for work of the same value as that of their male colleagues.
	There are two particular problems. The first is the six-month time limit after termination of employment for lodging claims. The second is the requirement that every case be pursued by an individual. That, by definition, means that the Act is poorly equipped to address systematic underpayment across a whole industry. To achieve the objectives of the Act and fulfil its principles, it would have made much more sense for a class action to be brought.
	I know that the Government have been keeping equal pay, and the working of the Equal Pay Act, under close scrutiny. I understand that on 5 December there will be an equal pay summit, where further consideration will be given to how the pay gap can be eradicated for good. I ask the Minister to ensure that the experiences and issues that I have touched on tonight are raised at that summit, and that some consideration is given to the problems in this case and to preventing them from happening again in the future. That would at least give some comfort to the people affected, and some recognition of what they have been through.
	I hope that we can still go further and explore whether there is a way of making a gesture to the people concerned, in recognition of the moral principle so clearly at stake in this case. Nobody doubts that thousands of women were underpaid for work that they undertook in the 1970s and 1980s. Some recompense in recognition of that would be entirely in keeping with the spirit of the Equal Pay Act, and would be justified, given the exceptional circumstances of the time.
	I am grateful for having had the opportunity to raise this important issue tonight, and place on the record the experiences of my constituents. It may seem obscure to some, but I assure the House that it matters a great deal to the people who have lived through every stage of it.
	As a new Member of Parliament I have come to the issue late, but I know that it has involved Members from coalfield communities throughout Britain. I am pleased to see in the House tonight so many Members who represent those communities.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for Selby (Mr. Grogan), for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) have pursued this issue assiduously for many years, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones) since they were elected. Their efforts, I know, have been much appreciated by the people involved. I hope that the Minister will ask the Minister for Industry and Energy whether he will meet us all soon to discuss further some of the issues I have raised tonight.
	The Government have already done a great deal to help mining communities. Progress is being made with the miners' compensation scheme. We welcome the work done by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and the positive developments that he announced last week.
	Earlier today, the Prime Minister referred to the 1.5 billion being invested in helping mining communities towards a better future. My hon. Friends and I are extremely grateful for that continued help and commitment, and will keep on working with the Government for the betterment of the people and the communities we represent.

Alan Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on securing this debate, on bringing the issue before the House and on the eloquent way in which he set out the case. This is an important issue, which deserves attention, and I am not surprised that more than 20 Labour Members are here at this late hour.
	I fully understand the strength of feeling in coalfield communities around the United Kingdom. The issue has a long history; it is surrounded by a great deal of confusion in some areas. My hon. Friend set out the case very clearly, but if he will allow me I will go over some of the points from the Government's perspective, to ensure that we have clearly placed on record what has happened.
	The issue arose in the early 1980s. Originally, certain British Coal women workers, mainly cleaning and canteen staff, lodged claims under the Equal Pay Act 1970 which required like pay for like work. Those claims proved unsuccessful and, in the event, British Coal won the litigation. The 1970 Act was amended so that claims could be made on an equal value basis. Subsequently, the majority of those women who had lodged the earlier claims went on to lodge equal value claims.
	In all, about 1,300 women lodged claims at the employment tribunal between 1986 and 1992. The Act, as amended, enabled the women to seek compensation if they could show that they were being paid less than men in comparable jobs. British Coal initially resisted this on the ground that the legislation did not apply to its situation. The arguments about the legal technicalities went on for many years, culminating in hearings in the Court of Appeal and the other place.
	The eventual ruling on the issues of legal interpretation went against the British Coal arguments, clearing the way for a consideration of the merits of the individual claims of comparability. Recognising the complexities that that involved, the courts encouraged the parties to settle the matter without recourse to further proceedings, and on a broad-brush basis. The members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers settled at an early stage, and a number of members of the National Union of Mineworkers subsequently settled as well. However, the NUM urged the majority of its members not to settle.
	A deal to settle the claims was finally brokered in April this year by the then Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain). Under that agreement, all the women with valid claims stood to receive settlements based on length of service. The average settlement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, was about 10,000. It was also agreed that those who had accepted British Coal's earlier offer would receive top-up payments ensuring that all those eligible would receive settlements on the same basis.
	The issue raised by my hon. Friend relates to the position of women whose claims were not registered in accordance with the legislation. The legal position is clear: the terms of the Equal Pay Act impose a time limit on bringing a claim before an employment tribunal of six months from the termination of employment. There is no discretion to extend that limit.
	My hon. Friend suggested that that element of the Act should be reviewed in future. I am thinking on my feet, but in some respects such a review might be sensible; in future we should perhaps reconsider that provision. However, the law as it stands allows no discretion: anyone who fails to register a claim in the employment tribunal system within six months of termination of employment does not have a legally valid claim to equal-value pay under the terms of the Act, and is not eligible for a payment.

Jeff Ennis: There are 84 women canteen workers in my constituency who fall into that invalid claim category and I have been in constant correspondence with them. I have received pro formas from 68 of those former canteen workers, 53 of whom tell me that they never realised that they could make a claim. Surely, if people never knew or realised that they could make a claim, it is natural justice that they should be considered for compensation under the Equal Pay Act.

Alan Johnson: I appreciate that point, and shall talk about some of the individual cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Leigh. However, both the UDM and the NUM would have been well aware of the equal value rules and of the procedures to be followed under the Act. As in all such matters, it was their responsibility to keep their members informed, although obviously that is no comfort to the individuals involved.

Jeff Ennis: But of 68 claimants, 20 were not members of a trade union, 34 were in the NUM and 11 were in other trade unions. It is not merely a question of trade union membership: we should treat all the former canteen workers equitably whether they are trade union members or not.

Alan Johnson: I take my hon. Friend's point, but he will appreciate that we have all heard of many cases of claims that were submitted after the six monthsthere is no discretion to extend the current terms of the Equal Pay Act.
	I can understand the consternation of women who find themselves in that position. There may be a variety of reasons why they did not register a claim: my hon. Friend has just mentioned one. Some of them may not have been informed that it was possible to make a claim; others may have been let down by people acting on their behalf. I do not want to comment on the avenues that might be available to pursue claims against such advisers or agents. However, the point at which fateful actions were takenor, more likely, not takenwill usually have been many years ago.
	The case that has been put to the Government by several of my hon. Friends recognises those facts. The suggestion has been made that the Government, standing behind the British Coal Corporation, should make some form of ex gratia payment[Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] I point out that the corporation itself, although still in existence, has neither the resources nor the statutory powers to make such payments.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy has given those requests considerable thought. Having done so, however, he has concluded that it is not possible to pay money on such a large number of claims that have turned up more than a decade late. To make an exception of that group and to pay out on what are now invalid claims would be grossly unfair to all the other people who have had similar claims disqualified under the tribunal system on the grounds of time barring.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made one simple request of the Minister: that he would meet us as a group to discuss the problem and consider a way forward. Will my hon. Friend accede to that request?

Alan Johnson: I shall return to that point in a moment, before we run out of time.
	I stress that if the unregistered claims had been lodged in a timely manner, the problem would not have arisen and much anxiety would have been avoided. Nevertheless, we are in the situation that we are in, and I hope that I have made it clear that the position that we have adopted is not one that we have taken lightly. It is not the case that my Department is unwilling to meet its responsibilities. The fact that we will be paying out on settlements worth around 14 million is ample evidence of that. What was promised is being delivered to all the women with valid claims, and to the NUM. Moreover, we continue to make every effort to locate those women with valid claims who have either not come forward or up to now are not traceable, in order that they can get what they are entitled to. I am pleased to report that, at the end of October, more than 90 per cent. of the registered cases had been settled.
	None of this is any comfort, of course, to those women who do not have valid registered claims.

Rob Marris: We have arrived at this situation after many years. I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance to take legal advice on whether the lack of discretion in the six-month time limit puts us outwith European legislation, in particular article 118, and if so whether any moves will be made to amend domestic legislation with regard to equal treatment.

Alan Johnson: I am not in a position to answer that question, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy will be at the meeting that I shall refer to in a second.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister saying that special cases of any kind have never been made in employment law? I would just remind him about GCHQ. If it is a question of moneyI do not think it isjust remember that the Government are taking half of the additional pensions that accrued over many years, and we are talking there about loads of money. I hope that the Minister will look at the ex gratia solution.

Alan Johnson: There have been ex gratia payments. As far as I am aware, we have never dealt with claims registered outside the six-month limit at employment tribunals in any different way, because to do so would affect all those people whose claims were debarred in the past.

Caroline Flint: A number of women in my constituency did not have their claim registered because they were not represented properly by their trade union. I understand that the NUM was given a sum of money to cover its costs, and asked for that not to be disclosed. Is it not about time that we knew what money it received? If it was at fault, it should pay the women itself.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend raises a point that I am not equipped to answer, but there is a question mark about how the claims were dealt with, not just by the NUM but by the UDM.
	We have an obligation to secure fairness of treatment between different groups of possible applicants under the legislation working for different employers in different industries who do not have valid claims. Applying that test of fairness, there is no basis on which we could justify special treatment for this group of ex-British Coal employees. I know that that is difficult for those involved and difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh to accept. He has been a skilled and vociferous advocate for them, as have other colleagues, but it would be cruel to hold out false promises when the issue has been examined in great detail. Nevertheless, I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy has already agreed to a meeting next week. That will be a better forum than here, where we are time-limited and there is not the same opportunity to exchange the detailed points that the issue requires.
	So I can confirm on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy that he will meet interested Members of Parliament next week. We can then go through the issue in more detail. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friends and the House will recognise that this is an important issue. We have looked at it carefully. We do not take these decisions lightly, but we do not currently believe that there is any basis for offering false hope to the women whose plight has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh tonight.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.